Stop The Toxic Wells / CROW
TCEQ HEARING DATE SET
September 24, 2008 Austin Texas (1:00pm)
This is it folks “THE” date we have all been waiting for.
Come one come ALL we need everyone to attend this hearing.
We MUST fill a minimum of 4 buses to fill the hearing rooms…This is critical. Come show your support for your community and your opposition to the injection well permits. You are making a stand to save your home, your business, your life and the lives of your family.
There is no option but to attend.
Email me today with you commitment and or to reserve your seat on the bus to jreal1@peoplepc.com
*** Experts please call me to get date to get together and plan.
Buses will leave @ 9:00 am and return?? (That evening)
Pick up locations:
1. Conroe - Lone Star Convention Center ( address & map will be sent to all confirmed seat holders)
2. Woodlands - Kroger’s @ Alden Bridge
Donation of $10 per person is appreciated to help cover bus cost but not mandatory. Our priority is to fill the buses.
SIGNS
We need people to purchase signs to advertise this hearing. The cost is $5 per sign. Email me right away if you would like one, two, three etc... jreal1@peoplepc.com
· Great idea – put them in your car window and when you go to the Mall or Market Street etc.. Everyone will see them.
Volunteer Help Needed
1. To go door to door with flyers for hearing.
2. Help us call people on our petitions that do not have email to advise of hearing date.
Email me if you can help out with this jreal1@peoplepc.com
Meeting set for Grangerland Fire Dept. Sept. 4th 2008 7pm
This meeting will confirm bus info. Plan from lawyers as what to expect and what happens after hearing. We will also have flyers for door to door distribution, signs and more info.
Address and directions to follow shortly..
Thanks everyone for everything. This is it don’t stop now tell EVERYONE you can and tell them to do the same.
Jennifer Real – jreal1@peoplepc.com or call me @
936-499-7173 or 936-756-5726
Friday, August 29, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
RPMUD 8/28 meeting
The following list of items will be discussed at the 8/28 meeting:
1. Public hearing on the tax rates
2. Confirm minutes of 7/24 and 8/11 meetings.
3. Comments from the public.
4. Representative will discuss chlorine gas.
5. Review/approve FYE 2009 budgets.
6. Consider, adopt and set 2008 tax rate.
7. Review/approve change orders nos. 2 and 3.
8. Confirm protocol on legal inquiries directed at the District.
9. Confirm costs in responding to Open Records Act.
10. Discuss Dippel's 7/17 letter to District regarding Posting of Notices.
11. Discuss open storm drainage collection boxes in district.
12. Review/vote for board for TX Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool
13. Discuss changing meeting time.
14. Review administrative reports.
15. Discuss any new or unfinished business
1. Public hearing on the tax rates
2. Confirm minutes of 7/24 and 8/11 meetings.
3. Comments from the public.
4. Representative will discuss chlorine gas.
5. Review/approve FYE 2009 budgets.
6. Consider, adopt and set 2008 tax rate.
7. Review/approve change orders nos. 2 and 3.
8. Confirm protocol on legal inquiries directed at the District.
9. Confirm costs in responding to Open Records Act.
10. Discuss Dippel's 7/17 letter to District regarding Posting of Notices.
11. Discuss open storm drainage collection boxes in district.
12. Review/vote for board for TX Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool
13. Discuss changing meeting time.
14. Review administrative reports.
15. Discuss any new or unfinished business
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Postal Service Delivery Issue
I know that the toxic wells and the water treatment plant are hot issues right now, but I have a minor little issue that I wanted to see if others were having a problem with lately with the USPS in our neighborhood. The postal carrier has gotten into the habit over the past couple of months or so of leaving packages balanced on top of mailboxes instead of placing them on the front doorstep or leaving a package pickup slip. I have several issues with this. First of all, it makes for a tempting target for mischievous teenagers or strangers driving through the neighborhood. Secondly, it leaves the package exposed to the weather (I have picked up a package that was totally drenched by the rain before because it rained that very afternoon after the mail was delivered). Thirdly, there is no telling how long the package may sit out there if a resident is out of town for a day or two which goes back to my first point regarding mischievous teenagers or strangers.
Does anyone else have this issue? I've noticed a couple of folks with packages on top of their mailboxes as well on Braxton Bragg. I'm assuming we have a new carrier on the route and he/she just doesn't want to make the effort to keep the packages safe and out of the elements.
Does anyone else have this issue? I've noticed a couple of folks with packages on top of their mailboxes as well on Braxton Bragg. I'm assuming we have a new carrier on the route and he/she just doesn't want to make the effort to keep the packages safe and out of the elements.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Open Meetings Act Violations
When Dick Judge and Jack Curtsinger were sworn in as directors on the RPMUD board in May, they were required by Texas law, effective January 1, 2006, to receive training in Texas open government laws. There were no "grandfather" provisions. All public officials must comply, including those elected before that date.
A memo from Smith, Murdaugh, Little & Bonham, attorneys, giving instructions for the training, contained the following paragraph:
"The law imposes no specific penalty on officials who fail to attend open government training. The purpose of the new law is not to punish public officials, but to foster open government by making open government education a recognized obligation of public service. Despite this lack of a penalty provision, the Attorney General has cautioned that a deliberate failure to comply with the training requirements could result in an increased risk of criminal prosecution should one ever be accused of violating the Open Meetings Act or the Public Information Act."
After Dick and Jack went through the training, it was discovered that there is a requirement of a 72-hour continuous notice to the public before the meeting. RPMUD posts notices on the bulletin board in their office and inside the courthouse. This has been a bone of contention between the residents and the board, because the residents were not kept apprised of the workings of RPMUD. RPMUD kept insisting their postings were "legal."
At the June board meeting, Jack presented a letter to the board and the RPMUD attorney, Charles Dippel with Andrews Kurth, notifying them of the possible violation and asking what effect this would have on prior actions. Board director, Bob Harvill noted, after hearing this, that they have been illegal for 38 years.
At the July board meeting, the attorney's response was on the agenda. No information has given to the directors prior to the meeting on this item. Ramirez read the response from the attorney, which in effect said RPMUD has been legal and all MUDs post as RPMUD posts. If they wanted to post on the window of the MUD office, it was OK with him (the attorney).
Dippel cites 49.063 of the Water Code, but ignores Section 551.043(a) of the Open Meetings Act, which reads "notice...must be posted in a place readily accessible to the general public at all times for at least 72 hours before the scheduled time of the meeting..." At the July board meeting, a notice was posted on the window in front of the RPMUD office and in the open garage of the courthouse. We don't know where Dippel is getting his information. It does not appear he read the Open Meetings Act. East Plantation posts their notices outside for all to see. The Woodlands, Walden, April Sound, Del Lago, Bentwater, any and all the ones we contacted are very diligent about posting where the public has 72 hours of continuous access. It seems that every MUD takes the Open Meetings Act seriously except our MUD.
Dick demanded a copy of the attorney's letter. Ramirez did not have copies for the directors, but gave Dick his copy after the meeting.
At the July meeting, Ramirez said the legal fees were around $11,000 and the election costs were $10,000, when the budget was being discussed. Harvill said that now people will know why they needed to remove the tax cap. I requested copies of the attorneys' invoices for 2008 and found that they total $18,162, through July 9. We have two legal firms working for us. Dippel's average hour charge is over $500 and Smith's is about $155. The Woodlands MUD I contacted only uses one law firm, and could not understand why we had two. One other rather interesting item is that the attorneys only talk to Ramirez and Ginger. Did not see any board member's names on the invoices. Some of the items on the invoices, it would appear, could have been answered by Election Central, the Attorney General's Handbooks on Open Meetings and Public Information, Robert's Rules of Order, the governmental entities' 800 number to the Attorney General's office, etc.
Stay tuned.
A memo from Smith, Murdaugh, Little & Bonham, attorneys, giving instructions for the training, contained the following paragraph:
"The law imposes no specific penalty on officials who fail to attend open government training. The purpose of the new law is not to punish public officials, but to foster open government by making open government education a recognized obligation of public service. Despite this lack of a penalty provision, the Attorney General has cautioned that a deliberate failure to comply with the training requirements could result in an increased risk of criminal prosecution should one ever be accused of violating the Open Meetings Act or the Public Information Act."
After Dick and Jack went through the training, it was discovered that there is a requirement of a 72-hour continuous notice to the public before the meeting. RPMUD posts notices on the bulletin board in their office and inside the courthouse. This has been a bone of contention between the residents and the board, because the residents were not kept apprised of the workings of RPMUD. RPMUD kept insisting their postings were "legal."
At the June board meeting, Jack presented a letter to the board and the RPMUD attorney, Charles Dippel with Andrews Kurth, notifying them of the possible violation and asking what effect this would have on prior actions. Board director, Bob Harvill noted, after hearing this, that they have been illegal for 38 years.
At the July board meeting, the attorney's response was on the agenda. No information has given to the directors prior to the meeting on this item. Ramirez read the response from the attorney, which in effect said RPMUD has been legal and all MUDs post as RPMUD posts. If they wanted to post on the window of the MUD office, it was OK with him (the attorney).
Dippel cites 49.063 of the Water Code, but ignores Section 551.043(a) of the Open Meetings Act, which reads "notice...must be posted in a place readily accessible to the general public at all times for at least 72 hours before the scheduled time of the meeting..." At the July board meeting, a notice was posted on the window in front of the RPMUD office and in the open garage of the courthouse. We don't know where Dippel is getting his information. It does not appear he read the Open Meetings Act. East Plantation posts their notices outside for all to see. The Woodlands, Walden, April Sound, Del Lago, Bentwater, any and all the ones we contacted are very diligent about posting where the public has 72 hours of continuous access. It seems that every MUD takes the Open Meetings Act seriously except our MUD.
Dick demanded a copy of the attorney's letter. Ramirez did not have copies for the directors, but gave Dick his copy after the meeting.
At the July meeting, Ramirez said the legal fees were around $11,000 and the election costs were $10,000, when the budget was being discussed. Harvill said that now people will know why they needed to remove the tax cap. I requested copies of the attorneys' invoices for 2008 and found that they total $18,162, through July 9. We have two legal firms working for us. Dippel's average hour charge is over $500 and Smith's is about $155. The Woodlands MUD I contacted only uses one law firm, and could not understand why we had two. One other rather interesting item is that the attorneys only talk to Ramirez and Ginger. Did not see any board member's names on the invoices. Some of the items on the invoices, it would appear, could have been answered by Election Central, the Attorney General's Handbooks on Open Meetings and Public Information, Robert's Rules of Order, the governmental entities' 800 number to the Attorney General's office, etc.
Stay tuned.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Problems with Google Alerts
I don't know about others whom have utilized Google Alerts to notify them of updates made to this blog, but I have had a problem with not receiving notices in about a month now. If you are having a similar problem, all I can recommend is that you try another alert service. Just check out the right side of the blog. If you scroll down a little ways, you'll see two pull-down menus for keeping up-to-date with blog entries and comments made on blog entries. If you like being alerted when new posts are made, I recommend you try out the Yahoo! alerts.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
RPMUD Board Meeting, Thursday, June 26
The board is meeting this Thursday, June 26, at 4 p.m. at the MUD office to discuss and approve purchasing an emergency generator for water plant #3 and to discuss and approve the purchase of golf carts.
There is also a Water Quality meeting the same day and place at 3:00 p.m. to discuss our water.
There is also a Water Quality meeting the same day and place at 3:00 p.m. to discuss our water.
Friday, June 20, 2008
And the reason for this plant is????
Happened to be looking over the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District website, and came upon the following report: "Planning Level Study for Alternative Surface Water Pipeline Routing in Montgomery County, May 31, 2008." This report appears to be a condensed version of a March 2008 report. It was interesting to find that River Plantation is not scheduled to be part of this project until phase IV - the year 2045. Isn't this the reason for the water treatment plant?
Here is the link to this report: http://www.lonestargcd.org/pdf/FinalPlanningLevelStudyAppendices.pdf
If you cannot access this link, just click on the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District website - www.lonestargcd.org - and then to Board Activities on the top. Click on Publications and under LSGCD Reports, you will see this report. It is rather lengthy (368 pages), but informative and includes maps.
Maybe my mind is going, but does anyone remember the reason for this plant? Every reason RPMUD has given for the construction of this plant has been shot full of holes.
To refresh your memory, here are the reasons we have heard:
(1) Well #2 may fail. Well #3 is already supplying water to well #2 and has been for about eleven years.
(2) Plant #2 may fail. As we have done in the past when we needed to make repairs, we have used the interconnect to EPUD.
(3) Plant #2 may be hit by a hurricane. Same as above.
(4) Fire prevention. The VFD needs fire hydrants not another tank.
(5) The development across the freeway. The City of Conroe has water lines next to the property and can furnish water.
(6) Meet the 30% surface water needs. According to the LSGCD report, we won't be included in this project until 2045.
We are back to the very first of our emails: "We don't need it. Why build it?"
Those of you at the March 27, 2008, board meeting may recall that the purchase of 5 trees and 8 oleanders was approved. As of this date, 6 trees, 12 oleanders and 10 wax myrtles have been planted. Sprinkler lines have been installed. The grass in this area was being cut previously, but now the plants and the fence line are being edged. More maintenance.
This plant project, which was bid at $779,500 by Shier Construction, could exceed that number. Why are we spending this money for a project that we don't need and don't want at the front of our subdivision?
We have yet to be given a reason that makes sense. We have no growth here, yet this project will practically double the amount of our water storage. What am I missing? Can't this money be put to better use? At numerous board meetings, it was noted that upgrades need to be made to the sewer treatment plant. How about using it there?
Heard again that this rumor, that we knew about the water treatment plant before we bought our lot, is still going around. This story was started by the RPMUD office. RPMUD is a governmental body subject to the Open Records Act. All you have to do is make a request in writing to RPMUD that you want to see evidence that we knew about this plant before we bought our property. They have ten days to furnish the information. But, please, make the request to see for yourself or to silence anyone still spreading this story.
You can sign up to receive e-mail alerts from our blog: riverplantationforum.blogspot.com. The board meeting is next week. Information about the meeting should be on the blog by Monday or early Tuesday.
Here is the link to this report: http://www.lonestargcd.org/pdf/FinalPlanningLevelStudyAppendices.pdf
If you cannot access this link, just click on the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District website - www.lonestargcd.org - and then to Board Activities on the top. Click on Publications and under LSGCD Reports, you will see this report. It is rather lengthy (368 pages), but informative and includes maps.
Maybe my mind is going, but does anyone remember the reason for this plant? Every reason RPMUD has given for the construction of this plant has been shot full of holes.
To refresh your memory, here are the reasons we have heard:
(1) Well #2 may fail. Well #3 is already supplying water to well #2 and has been for about eleven years.
(2) Plant #2 may fail. As we have done in the past when we needed to make repairs, we have used the interconnect to EPUD.
(3) Plant #2 may be hit by a hurricane. Same as above.
(4) Fire prevention. The VFD needs fire hydrants not another tank.
(5) The development across the freeway. The City of Conroe has water lines next to the property and can furnish water.
(6) Meet the 30% surface water needs. According to the LSGCD report, we won't be included in this project until 2045.
We are back to the very first of our emails: "We don't need it. Why build it?"
Those of you at the March 27, 2008, board meeting may recall that the purchase of 5 trees and 8 oleanders was approved. As of this date, 6 trees, 12 oleanders and 10 wax myrtles have been planted. Sprinkler lines have been installed. The grass in this area was being cut previously, but now the plants and the fence line are being edged. More maintenance.
This plant project, which was bid at $779,500 by Shier Construction, could exceed that number. Why are we spending this money for a project that we don't need and don't want at the front of our subdivision?
We have yet to be given a reason that makes sense. We have no growth here, yet this project will practically double the amount of our water storage. What am I missing? Can't this money be put to better use? At numerous board meetings, it was noted that upgrades need to be made to the sewer treatment plant. How about using it there?
Heard again that this rumor, that we knew about the water treatment plant before we bought our lot, is still going around. This story was started by the RPMUD office. RPMUD is a governmental body subject to the Open Records Act. All you have to do is make a request in writing to RPMUD that you want to see evidence that we knew about this plant before we bought our property. They have ten days to furnish the information. But, please, make the request to see for yourself or to silence anyone still spreading this story.
You can sign up to receive e-mail alerts from our blog: riverplantationforum.blogspot.com. The board meeting is next week. Information about the meeting should be on the blog by Monday or early Tuesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
