By R.J. Morales | TX3DNews.com
Princeton residents packed City Hall on July 14, 2025, seeking answers and accountability from city leaders after months of confusion and frustration over water billing errors. What emerged was a meeting defined by sharp questions, strong public sentiment, and a city administration promising to chart a path forward—if not quite able to offer immediate relief.
“Is it a cover-up, corruption, or just incompetence?”
Teresa McGinnis of Safeguard Princeton wasted no time getting straight to the point. She laid out her concerns plainly and directly:
“It is up to you guys to vote for a full forensic audit and to repeal the ordinance 2024091602, which was enacted to cover up the customer overcharges of the water bills. Show Princeton our City Council is working for them.”
McGinnis pointed to a technical detail—a 10,000 gallon cap—that, if applied correctly, would actually flip the script and turn overcharges into refunds. “Instead of the customer owing the city $150, the city owes them $22.66,” she argued.
And McGinnis didn’t mince words about the seriousness of the issue, pressing the council with a pointed question:
“Now, is this a cover up? Is it flat out corruption, or is it incompetence? Either way, there needs to be accountability.”
She was especially direct about the city manager’s role, adding:
“He is the one who made the decision to cover up the water bill error instead of correcting it.”
Ethics and Dollars—Not Just a Technicality
Ken Sligman of Arcadia Farms zeroed in on accountability: “I’m here to talk about the overcharging of wastewater billing in Princeton during the fiscal year 2024.” He reminded council the problem was discovered last year but “there was no disclosures of the overcharging nor efforts to refund the improperly taken monies.” He credited Teresa McGinnis, statingm “If this issue had not been discovered and presented to the council by Teresa McGinnis of Safeguard Princeton, there would be no discussion of the overcharging or refunding of residents’ funds.” but “there was no disclosures of the overcharging nor efforts to refund the improperly taken monies.”
Sligman’s charge was clear:
“This act was not only a violation of our city ordinances and financial mismanagement, but also a huge failure of ethics, which must be properly addressed.”
Sligman stated, “The estimated $1 million was knowingly attributed to the financial reserves of the city by Mr. Mashburn in the 2024 financial audit. When it did not belong to the city? This is not okay.”
How Did This Happen? The City Tries to Explain
When it came time for city staff to answer for the mess, the job fell to Utility Billing Revenue Manager William Rosales. His explanation didn’t inspire much confidence in the city’s internal controls:
“An ordinance was brought to council. Council voted on it and passed…It was an ordinance implementing wastewater winter averaging. But…me and my staff [were] instructed, ‘Hey, this ordinance passed. Don’t do anything with it yet.’ I don’t know why. I was just told, don’t do anything with it yet.”
Rosales said bluntly,
“Throughout this whole time, winter averaging has not taken place. It’s not being implemented, nothing is done with it. I’m sorry.”
He continued, laying out the administrative fumble:
“The module in the [billing] software was nonexistent. We didn’t have it. … There were many hands in the pot at the time. … It fell through.”
And the solution? Rosales didn’t sugarcoat the scale of the task ahead:
“Out of the 10,624 accounts that we’ve got, about 7,500 of them would qualify for a refund, about anywhere from $0–$120. … I would have to process 2,656 adjustments a month within 120 days, and that’s minus Saturday Sundays, which means I would have to do at least 121 adjustments per day.”
His team, he assured, is ready to get to work—but only with the council’s direction:
“Me and my staff are ready to go. I just need direction.”
Council: More Questions Than Answers
Mayor Eugene Escobar Jr. made clear that refunds are required by law and will be processed:
“I think that’s something that we’re going to have to do regardless, that was law. … We owe that to the residents to make sure we refund their accounts, and I want to make sure we do that in a way … so it can be done the right way.”
He also cautioned that bigger changes like winter averaging will require more study:
“I would recommend that we do that water study so we can know the full implications … I want to make sure that whatever decisions that we make from council … we understand the implications in the next 5–10 years from now.”
Public Works Director Tommy Mapp added that no billing changes will happen until the city completes its water and wastewater master plans.
The Takeaway: Refunds Moving Forward, Broader Changes Pending
Mayor Eugene Escobar Jr. has confirmed that required refunds will be processed, while additional changes such as winter averaging remain under review pending further study. The city has acknowledged concerns and outlined the next steps, but the full scope of future changes will depend on the outcome of ongoing planning and analysis.
Residents will have to wait for further updates as the city works through the process.
I think its time for the citizens of Princeton to stand up and be heard. Remember the city of Princeton officials were voted in office and therefore can be voted out. Stand united.
Thank You for the work you’re doing as well as this coverage important for our City. Our City Council Majority rarely demands accountability from our City Manager who is directing large Capital decisions and actions every week. We need more council members to do their own work investigating and asking questions instead of rubber stamping everything put before them. That is not what we elected them for.