A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI (Suggested by Becky Brooks)
Here is a funny, light-hearted, non-offensive survey designed as if a city or organization created it, full of the same bureaucratic absurdity but tailored for someone who’s just spent a couple of weeks in jail.
It is intentionally ridiculous — the kind of tone-deaf survey a city might send, trying to measure the “customer experience.”
⸻
POST-INCARCERATION CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY
Because your feedback helps us improve the parts of the experience we had no intention of improving.
Thank you for recently spending 10–45 days with us!
Your stay matters to us, and we’d love your thoughts.
Please take 3–90 minutes to complete this survey.
⸻
SECTION 1 — OVERALL EXPERIENCE
1. How satisfied were you with your recent incarceration?
• ☐ Very Satisfied
• ☐ Satisfied
• ☐ Neutral (emotionally or spiritually)
• ☐ Dissatisfied
• ☐ Very Dissatisfied
• ☐ I would like to speak to the manager of jail, please
2. Would you recommend our facility to friends or family?
• ☐ Yes, absolutely
• ☐ Only if they deserve it
• ☐ No, but I might recommend it to my ex
3. Did your stay meet your expectations?
• ☐ It exceeded them, shockingly
• ☐ It met them, sadly
• ☐ What expectations?
• ☐ I didn’t expect any of this
⸻
SECTION 2 — ACCOMMODATIONS
4. How would you rate the comfort of your sleeping arrangements?
• ☐ Five stars (would book again on Expedia)
• ☐ Three stars (I’ve slept on worse couches)
• ☐ One star (my back may sue you)
• ☐ Zero stars (please never ask this again)
5. How would you describe room service?
• ☐ Prompt and professional
• ☐ Present
• ☐ Sporadic
• ☐ I was unaware room service was an option
• ☐ Wait… was that what breakfast was supposed to be?
⸻
SECTION 3 — DINING EXPERIENCE
6. Rate the culinary artistry of our meals:
• ☐ Michelin-worthy
• ☐ Edible with effort
• ☐ Mysterious but survivable
• ☐ I have questions that science cannot answer
7. Did you enjoy the variety of menu options?
• ☐ Yes
• ☐ No
• ☐ I’m still not sure if Tuesday’s entrée was food
⸻
SECTION 4 — PROGRAMMING & ACTIVITIES
8. Which of the following activities did you participate in?
• ☐ Walking in circles
• ☐ Sitting
• ☐ Thinking about life
• ☐ Thinking about lunch
• ☐ Wondering why time moves slower in here
• ☐ Other (please describe your spiritual journey): ___________
9. Did your stay include any unexpected opportunities for personal growth?
• ☐ Learned patience
• ☐ Learned humility
• ☐ Learned the legal system very quickly
• ☐ Learned I never want to fill out this survey again
⸻
SECTION 5 — CUSTOMER SERVICE
10. How would you rate the friendliness of staff?
• ☐ Surprisingly pleasant
• ☐ Professionally indifferent
• ☐ “Move over there” was said with warmth
• ☐ I think they liked me
• ☐ I think they didn’t
11. Did staff answer your questions in a timely manner?
• ☐ Yes
• ☐ No
• ☐ I’m still waiting
• ☐ I learned not to ask questions
⸻
SECTION 6 — RELEASE PROCESS
12. How smooth was your release experience?
• ☐ Smooth
• ☐ Mostly smooth
• ☐ Bumpy
• ☐ Like trying to exit a maze blindfolded
13. Upon release, did you feel ready to re-enter society?
• ☐ Yes, I am reborn
• ☐ Somewhat
• ☐ Not at all
• ☐ Please define “ready”
⸻
SECTION 7 — FINAL COMMENTS
14. If you could change one thing about your stay, what would it be?
(Please choose only one):
• ☐ The walls
• ☐ The food
• ☐ The schedule
• ☐ The length of stay
• ☐ All of the above
• ☐ I decline to answer on advice of counsel
15. Additional feedback for management:
⸻
⸻
(Comments will be carefully reviewed by someone someday.)
⸻
Thank You!
Your answers will be used to improve future guest experiences,*
I. Introduction — The Spark That Changes the World
Every great invention begins not in a laboratory but in a restless mind that refuses to accept things as they are. The inventor lives in the thin air between wonder and frustration: the wonder of seeing what might be, and the frustration that it does not yet exist.
To invent is to cross the border between imagination and matter—between “why not?” and “now it works.” Across centuries, the world’s greatest inventors have built in different mediums—stone, steam, circuits, code—yet share the same mental wiring: curiosity that won’t rest, courage that won’t quit, and a faith that imagination can serve humanity.
II. The Inventive Mindset
The inventor’s mind is a paradox. It thrives on both chaos and order, fantasy and formula.
Curiosity is its compass—an ache to understand how things work and how they could work better.
Observation is its lens—seeing patterns others overlook.
Playfulness is its fuel—testing ideas without fear of failure.
Persistence is its backbone—enduring the thousand prototypes that don’t succeed.
Failure doesn’t frighten the inventor; indifference does. To stop asking “why” is a far greater tragedy than a circuit that burns or a model that breaks.
III. Ten Inventors, Ten Windows into the Mind of Creation
Leonardo da Vinci — Sketching the Sky Before It Existed
Leonardo filled his notebooks with wings, gears, and impossible dreams. He studied the curve of a bird’s feather as if decoding a sacred language.
“Once you have tasted flight,” he wrote, “you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward.” He painted with one hand and designed with the other, proving that art and engineering are not rivals but reflections. His flying machines never left the ground, yet every modern aircraft carries a trace of his ink.
Benjamin Franklin — Harnessing Heaven for Humanity
Franklin saw storms not as terrors but as teachers. He tied a key to a kite and coaxed lightning to reveal its secret kinship with electricity.
“Electric fire,” he marveled, “is of the same kind with that which is in the clouds.” The lightning rod followed—a humble spike that saved countless roofs. His bifocals, his stove, his civic inventions all arose from empathy: an elder’s eyes, a neighbor’s cold house, a printer’s smoky air. He turned curiosity into charity.
Eli Whitney — The Engineer Who Made Things Fit
Whitney watched field hands comb seeds from cotton and thought, There must be a better way. His wire-toothed drum and brush—the cotton gin—sped production a hundredfold.
“It was a small thing,” he later said, “but small things change empires.” The gin enriched the South and, tragically, deepened slavery. Seeking redemption through precision, Whitney built the first system of interchangeable parts, proving that uniformity could multiply freedom of production. He changed not just a crop but the logic of industry.
Thomas Edison — The Factory of Light
At Menlo Park, light spilled from the windows while others slept. Inside, hundreds of filaments burned and failed.
“I haven’t failed,” Edison smiled. “I’ve found ten thousand ways that won’t work.” When carbonized bamboo finally glowed for 1,200 hours, he built an entire electric ecosystem—power plants, wiring, meters, sockets. His true invention was not the bulb but the process of systematic innovation itself.
Nikola Tesla — The Dream That Outran Its Century
Tesla lived amid lightning of his own making. To him, the universe pulsed with invisible currents waiting to be tamed.
“The moment I imagine a device,” he claimed, “I can make it run in my mind.” His AC induction motor and polyphase system powered cities from Niagara Falls. His dream of wireless energy bankrupted him but electrified the future. In him, imagination was not daydreaming—it was blueprinting.
Marie Curie — The Glow of the Invisible
In a shed that smelled of acid and hope, Curie boiled tons of pitchblende until a speck of radium glowed.
“Nothing in life is to be feared,” she said, “it is only to be understood.” Her discovery of radioactivity opened new worlds of medicine and physics. During World War I she outfitted trucks with X-rays, saving thousands of soldiers. Science for her was not ambition—it was service illuminated.
The Wright Brothers — Learning the Language of Air
In their Dayton workshop, the Wrights balanced on wings of wood and faith. They built a wind tunnel, measured lift with bicycle parts, and studied every gust as if air itself were a textbook.
“The bird doesn’t just rise,” Wilbur observed, “it balances.” Their 1903 flight at Kitty Hawk lasted only seconds, yet the world’s horizon shifted forever. They proved that methodical curiosity could conquer gravity itself.
Albert Einstein — Thought as an Instrument
Einstein’s laboratory was his imagination. He pictured himself chasing a beam of light and realized time might bend to keep pace.
“Imagination,” he said, “is more important than knowledge.” From that image grew relativity, which remade physics. Yet his most practical insight—the photoelectric effect—became the foundation of solar power. Einstein invented with ideas instead of tools, showing that creativity can re-engineer reality.
Steve Jobs — The Art of Simplicity
Jobs demanded elegance as fiercely as others demanded speed. He fused hardware and software into harmony.
“It just works,” he’d say, though it took a thousand revisions to reach that ease. The Mac, the iPod, the iPhone—each was less a gadget than a philosophy: that design is love made visible. Jobs reinvented the personal device by stripping it down until only meaning remained.
Tim Berners-Lee — The Architect of the Digital Commons
In a corridor at CERN, Berners-Lee envisioned scientists everywhere linking their work with one simple syntax.
“I just wanted a way for people to share what they knew.” He built HTTP, HTML, and the first web server—then released them freely. No patents, no gatekeepers. His generosity made the World Wide Web the shared library of humankind.
Together they form a single conversation across centuries. Leonardo sketched the dream of flight; the Wrights gave it wings. Franklin tamed electricity; Tesla made it sing; Edison wired it into homes. Curie revealed invisible forces; Einstein explained them. Jobs and Berners-Lee re-channeled that same human spark into light made of code. Each voice answers the one before it, echoing: The world can be improved, and I will try.
IV. The Invisible Thread — Purpose and Pattern
Behind every experiment lies a conviction: that the universe is intelligible and worth improving. Their shared geometry is imagination → iteration → illumination. They teach that invention is not chaos but a form of hope—faith that our designs, however imperfect, can serve life itself. The true legacy of invention is not a patent portfolio; it is a pattern of thinking that turns wonder into welfare.
V. Conclusion — Love, Made Useful
The mind of an inventor is not born whole. It is forged in curiosity, hammered by failure, and tempered by empathy. These ten lives remind us that progress is a moral act, rooted in patience and compassion.
To think like an inventor is to love the world enough to fix it—to build not merely for profit or prestige but for people yet unborn. Invention, at its purest, is love that learned to use its hands.
Appendix — Biographical Notes and Key Inventions
Leonardo da Vinci — Italian polymath; foresaw helicopters, tanks, and canal locks through meticulous study of anatomy and motion. Key: flight sketches, helical air screw, gear systems.
Benjamin Franklin — Printer, scientist, diplomat; proved lightning’s electrical nature; invented lightning rod, bifocals, Franklin stove. Key: electrical experiments, civic innovations.
Eli Whitney — American engineer; built the cotton gin and standardized interchangeable parts for firearms, shaping mass production. Key: cotton gin, precision tooling.
Thomas Edison — Inventor-entrepreneur; created the practical light system, phonograph, and motion picture camera; pioneered industrial R&D. Key: incandescent lamp, phonograph, Kinetoscope.
Nikola Tesla — Serbian-American engineer; developed AC motors, polyphase power, radio principles, and the Tesla coil. Key: alternating-current system, wireless power concepts.
Marie Curie — Physicist-chemist; discovered radium and polonium; founded radiology; first double Nobel laureate. Key: radioactivity research, mobile X-rays.
Orville & Wilbur Wright — American aviation pioneers; invented three-axis control, conducted first powered flight. Key: controlled flight, wind-tunnel data.
Albert Einstein — Theoretical physicist; formulated relativity, explained photoelectric effect, father of modern physics. Key: relativity, photoelectric effect.
Steve Jobs — Apple co-founder; integrated technology and design into consumer art; drove personal computing and mobile revolutions. Key: Macintosh, iPod/iTunes, iPhone, iPad.
Tim Berners-Lee — British computer scientist; created the World Wide Web’s foundational architecture and kept it open. Key: URL, HTTP, HTML, first web server/browser.
🎨 Painting Concept: “The Council of Inventors”
Setting: A softly lit Renaissance-style hall that feels timeless — stone arches overhead, candlelight mingling with the faint glow of electricity. At the center, a great oak table curves like an infinity symbol, symbolizing endless human curiosity. Around it, the ten inventors gather in dialogue — not chronological, but thematic, their inventions subtly illuminating the room.
Foreground Figures
Leonardo da Vinci stands near the left, sketchbook open, gesturing midair with a quill as though explaining the curvature of wings. His gaze meets the Wright Brothers, who are bent over a small model glider resting on the table.
Benjamin Franklin leans in nearby, one hand on a metal key, the other holding a faintly glowing lightning rod that arcs softly — the light blending into the candle glow.
Across from him, Edison adjusts a glowing bulb, its light reflecting in Franklin’s spectacles. Behind him, Nikola Tesla gazes upward, a tiny arc of blue current jumping between his fingertips, illuminating the diagram behind them.
Middle Figures
Eli Whitney sits near the table’s midpoint, hands on precision tools and calipers, his musket parts laid out like a puzzle. The Wright Brothers’ propeller model rests beside his gear molds, symbolizing the bridge between ground and air.
Marie Curie stands slightly apart, her face serene but determined, holding a small vial that emits a gentle ethereal light — a faint halo of pale blue radiance, illuminating her lab notes.
Albert Einstein leans over her shoulder, pipe in hand, scribbling light equations on a parchment that glow faintly, as if chalked by photons.
Background Figures
Steve Jobs is seated farther right, dressed in his signature black turtleneck — timeless among them — explaining the first iPhone to Tim Berners-Lee, who nods thoughtfully while holding a glowing string of code shaped like a thread of light. Between them, a subtle digital aura rises — a lattice of glowing lines suggesting the web connecting every mind in the room.
Municipal drone programs have rapidly evolved from experimental projects to dependable service tools. Today, Texas cities are beginning to treat drones not as gadgets but as core municipal utilities—shared resources as essential as fleet management, radios, or GIS. Properly implemented, drones can provide faster response times, safer job conditions, and higher-quality data, all while saving taxpayer money.
This paper explains how cities can build and sustain a municipal drone program. It examines current and emerging use cases, outlines staffing impacts, surveys training options and costs in Texas, explores fleet models and procurement, and considers the legal, policy, and community dimensions that must be addressed. It concludes with recommendations, case studies of failures, and appendices on payload regulation and FAA sample exam questions.
Handled wisely, drones will make cities safer, smarter, and more responsive. Mishandled, they risk creating public backlash, wasting funds, or even eroding trust.
The Case for Treating Drones as a Utility
Cities that succeed with drones do so by thinking of them as utilities, not toys. A drone program should be centrally governed, jointly funded, and transparently managed. Just like a municipal fleet or IT department, a citywide drone service must be reliable, equitable across departments, compliant with law, interoperable with other systems, and transparent to the public.
This approach ensures that drones are available where needed, that policies are consistent across departments, and that costs are shared fairly. Most importantly, it signals to residents that the city treats drone use seriously, with strong safeguards and clear accountability.
Current and Growing Uses
Across Texas and the country, municipal drones already serve a wide range of functions.
Public Safety: Police and fire agencies use drones as “first responders,” launching them from stations or rooftops to 911 calls. They provide live video of car crashes, fires, or hazardous scenes, often arriving before officers. Firefighters use drones with thermal cameras to locate victims or track hotspots in burning buildings.
Infrastructure and Public Works: Drones inspect bridges, culverts, roofs, and water towers. Instead of sending workers onto scaffolds or into confined spaces, crews now fly drones that capture detailed photos and 3D models. Landfills are surveyed from the air, methane leaks identified, and storm damage mapped quickly after major events.
Transportation and Planning: Drones monitor traffic flow, study queue lengths, and document work zones. City planners use them to create up-to-date maps, support zoning decisions, and maintain digital twins of urban areas.
Environmental and Health: From checking stormwater outfalls to mapping tree canopies, drones help environmental staff monitor city assets. In some regions, drones are used to identify standing water and apply larvicides for mosquito control.
Emergency Management: After floods, hurricanes, or tornadoes, drones provide rapid situational awareness, helping cities prioritize response and document damage for FEMA claims.
As automation improves, “drone-in-a-box” systems—drones that launch on schedule or in response to sensors—will soon become common municipal tools.
Staffing Impacts
A common fear is that drones will replace jobs. In practice, they save lives and money while creating new roles.
Jobs Saved: By reducing risky tasks like climbing scaffolds or entering confined spaces, drones make existing jobs safer. They also reduce overtime by finishing inspections or surveys in hours instead of days.
Jobs Added: Cities now employ drone program coordinators, FAA Part 107-certified pilots, data analysts, and compliance officers. A medium-sized Texas city might add ten to twenty such roles over the next five years.
Jobs Shifted: Inspectors, police officers, and firefighters increasingly become “drone-enabled” workers, adding aerial operations to their responsibilities. Over time, 5–10% of municipal staff in critical departments may be retrained in drone use.
The net result is redistribution rather than reduction. Drones are not eliminating jobs; they are elevating them.
Training in Texas
FAA rules require every commercial or government drone operator to hold a Part 107 Remote Pilot Certificate. Fortunately, Texas offers many affordable training options.
Community colleges such as Midland College and South Plains College provide Part 107 prep and hands-on flight training, typically costing $350 to $450 per course. Private providers like Dronegenuity and From Above Droneworks offer in-person and hybrid courses ranging from $99 online modules to $1,200 full academies. San Jacinto College and other universities run short workshops and certification tracks.
Online exam prep courses are widely available for $150–$400, making it feasible to train multiple staff at once. When departments train together, cities often negotiate group discounts and host joint scenario days at municipal training grounds.
Fleet Models and Costs
Municipal needs vary, but most cities benefit from a tiered fleet.
Micro drones (under 250g) for training and quick checks: $500–$1,200.
Utility quads for mapping and inspection: $2,500–$6,500.
Enterprise drones with thermal sensors for public safety: $7,500–$16,000.
Heavy-lift or VTOL systems for long corridors or specialized sensors: $18,000–$45,000+.
Each drone has a three- to five-year lifespan, with batteries refreshed every 200–300 cycles. Cities must also budget for accessories, insurance, and management software.
Policy and Legal Landscape
Federally, the FAA regulates drone operations under Part 107. Rules limit altitude to 400 feet, require flights within visual line of sight, and mandate Remote ID for most aircraft. Waivers can allow for advanced operations, such as flying beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS).
In Texas, additional laws restrict image capture in certain contexts and impose rules around critical infrastructure. Local governments cannot regulate airspace, but they can and should regulate employee conduct, data use, privacy, and procurement.
Transparency is crucial. Cities must publish clear retention policies, flight logs, and citizen FAQs.
Privacy, Labor, and Community Trust
For communities to embrace drones, cities must be proactive.
Privacy: Drones should collect only what is necessary, with cameras pointed at mission targets rather than private backyards. Non-evidentiary footage should be deleted within 30–90 days.
Labor: Cities should emphasize that drones augment rather than replace workers. They shift dangerous tasks to machines while providing staff new certifications and career paths.
Equity: Larger cities may advance faster than small towns, but shared services, inter-local agreements, and regional training programs can close the gap.
Community Trust: Transparency builds legitimacy. Cities should publish quarterly metrics, log complaints, host public demos, and maintain a clear point of contact for concerns.
Lessons from Failures
Not every program has succeeded. Across the country, drone initiatives have stumbled in predictable ways:
Community Pushback: Chula Vista’s pioneering drone-as-first-responder program drew criticism for surveillance concerns, while New York City’s holiday monitoring drones sparked public backlash. Lesson: transparency and engagement must come first.
Operational Incidents: A Charlotte police drone crashed into a house, and some agencies lost FAA waivers due to compliance lapses. Lesson: one mistake can jeopardize an entire program; training and discipline are essential.
Budget Failures: Dallas and other cities saw expansions stall over hidden costs for software and maintenance. Smaller towns wasted funds buying consumer drones that quickly wore out. Lesson: plan for lifecycle costs, not just hardware.
Legal Overreach: Connecticut’s proposal to arm police drones with “less-lethal” weapons collapsed amid backlash, while San Diego faced court challenges over warrant requirements. Lesson: pushing boundaries invites restrictions.
Scaling Gaps: Rural Texas counties bought drones with grants but lacked certified pilots or insurance. Small towns gathered imagery but had no analysts to use it. Lesson: drones without people and integration are wasted purchases.
Recommendations
Invest in training through Texas colleges and private providers.
Adopt clear policies on payloads, privacy, and data retention.
Prioritize non-kinetic payloads such as cameras, sensors, and lighting.
Prepare for BVLOS, which will transform municipal use once authorized.
Ensure equity, supporting smaller cities through regional cooperation.
Conclusion
Drones are no longer experimental novelties. They are rapidly becoming a core municipal utility—a shared service as essential as public works fleets or GIS. Their greatest promise lies not in flashy technology but in the steady, practical benefits they bring: safer workers, faster response, better data, and more transparent government.
But the promise depends on choices. Cities must prohibit weaponized payloads, publish clear policies, train and retrain staff, and engage openly with their communities. Done right, drones can strengthen both city effectiveness and public trust.
Appendix A: Administrative Regulation on Payloads
Title: Drone Payloads and Weapons Prohibition; Data & Safety Controls Number: AR-UAS-01 Effective Date: Upon issuance Applies To: All city employees, contractors, volunteers, or agents operating drones (UAS) on behalf of the City
1. Purpose
This regulation ensures that all municipal drone operations are conducted lawfully, ethically, and safely. It establishes clear prohibitions on weaponized or harmful payloads and sets minimum standards for data use, transparency, and accountability.
2. Definitions
UAS (Drone): An uncrewed aircraft and associated equipment used for flight.
Payload: Any item attached to or carried by a UAS, including cameras, sensors, lights, speakers, or drop mechanisms.
Weaponized or Prohibited Payload: Any device or substance intended to incapacitate, injure, damage, or deliver kinetic, chemical, electrical, or incendiary effects.
Authorized Payload: Sensors or devices explicitly approved by the UAS Program Manager for municipal purposes.
3. Policy Statement
The City strictly prohibits the use of weaponized or prohibited payloads on all drones.
Drones may only be used for documented municipal purposes, consistent with law, FAA rules, and City policy.
All payloads must be inventoried and approved by the UAS Program Manager.
4. Prohibited Payloads
The following are expressly prohibited:
Firearms, ammunition, or explosive devices.
Pyrotechnic, incendiary, or chemical agents (including tear gas, pepper spray, smoke bombs).
Projectiles, hard object drop devices, or kinetic impact payloads intended for crowd control.
Covert audio or visual recording devices in violation of state or federal law.
Exception: Non-weaponized lifesaving payloads (e.g., flotation devices, first aid kits, rescue lines) may be deployed only with prior written approval of the Program Manager and after a documented risk assessment.
5. Authorized Payloads
Authorized payloads include, but are not limited to:
Tethered systems for persistent observation or communications relay.
6. Oversight and Accountability
The UAS Program Manager must approve all payload configurations before deployment.
Departments must maintain an updated inventory of drones and payloads.
Quarterly inspections will be conducted to verify compliance.
An annual public report will summarize drone use, payload types, and incidents.
7. Data Controls
Minimization: Only record what is necessary for the mission.
Retention:
Non-evidentiary footage: 30–90 days.
Evidentiary footage: retained per case law.
Mapping/orthomosaics: retained per project records schedule.
Access: Role-based permissions, with audit logs.
Public Release: Media released under public records law must be reviewed for privacy and redaction (faces, license plates, sensitive sites).
8. Training Requirements
All operators must hold an FAA Part 107 Remote Pilot Certificate.
Annual city-approved training on:
This regulation (AR-UAS-01).
Privacy and data retention.
Citizen engagement and de-escalation.
Scenario-based training must be conducted at least once per year.
9. Enforcement
Violations of this regulation may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment or contract.
Prohibited payloads will be confiscated, logged, and removed from service.
Cases involving unlawful weaponization will be referred for criminal investigation.
10. Effective Date
This regulation is effective immediately upon approval by the City Manager and shall remain in force until amended or rescinded.
Appendix B: FAA Part 107 Sample Questions (Representative, 25 Items)
Note: These questions are drawn from FAA study materials and training resources. They are not live exam questions but are representative of the knowledge areas tested.
Under Part 107, what is the maximum allowable altitude for a small UAS? A. 200 feet AGL B. 400 feet AGL ✅ C. 500 feet AGL
What is the maximum ground speed allowed? A. 87 knots (100 mph) ✅ B. 100 knots (115 mph) C. 87 mph
To operate a small UAS for commercial purposes, which certification is required? A. Private Pilot Certificate B. Remote Pilot Certificate with a small UAS rating ✅ C. Student Pilot Certificate
Which airspace requires ATC authorization for UAS operations? A. Class G B. Class C ✅ C. Class E below 400 ft
How is controlled airspace authorization obtained? A. Verbal ATC request B. Filing a VFR flight plan C. Through LAANC or DroneZone ✅
Minimum visibility requirement for Part 107 operations? A. 1 statute mile B. 3 statute miles ✅ C. 5 statute miles
Required distance from clouds? A. 500 feet below, 2,000 feet horizontally ✅ B. 1,000 feet below, 1,000 feet horizontally C. No minimum distance
A METAR states: KDAL 151853Z 14004KT 10SM FEW040 30/22 A2992. What is the ceiling? A. Clear skies B. 4,000 feet few clouds ✅ C. 4,000 feet broken clouds
A TAF includes BKN020. What does this mean? A. Broken clouds at 200 feet B. Broken clouds at 2,000 feet ✅ C. Overcast at 20,000 feet
High humidity combined with high temperature generally results in: A. Increased performance B. Reduced performance ✅ C. No effect
If a drone’s center of gravity is too far aft, what happens? A. Faster than normal flight B. Instability, difficult recovery ✅ C. Less battery use
High density altitude (hot, high, humid) causes: A. Increased battery life B. Decreased propeller efficiency, shorter flights ✅ C. No effect
A drone at max gross weight of 55 lbs carries a 10 lb payload. Payload percent? A. 18% ✅ B. 10% C. 20%
At maximum gross weight, performance is: A. Improved stability B. Reduced maneuverability and endurance ✅ C. No change
The purpose of Crew Resource Management is: A. To reduce paperwork B. To use teamwork and communication to improve safety ✅ C. To reduce training costs
GPS signal lost and drone drifts — first action? A. Immediate Return-to-Home B. Switch to ATTI/manual mode, maintain control, land ✅ C. Climb higher for GPS
If a drone causes $500+ in property damage, what is required? A. Report only to local police B. FAA report within 10 days ✅ C. No report required
If the remote PIC is incapacitated, the visual observer should: A. Land the drone ✅ B. Call ATC C. Wait until PIC recovers
On a sectional chart, a magenta vignette indicates: A. Class E starting at surface ✅ B. Class C boundary C. Restricted airspace
A dashed blue line on a sectional chart indicates: A. Class B airspace B. Class D airspace ✅ C. Class G airspace
A magenta dashed circle indicates: A. Class E starting at surface ✅ B. Class G airspace C. No restrictions
Floor of Class E when sectional shows fuzzy side of a blue vignette? A. Surface B. 700 feet AGL ✅ C. 1,200 feet AGL
Main concern with fatigue while flying? A. Reduced battery performance B. Slower reaction and poor decision-making ✅ C. Increased radio interference
Alcohol is prohibited within how many hours of UAS operation? A. 4 hours B. 8 hours ✅ C. 12 hours
Maximum allowable BAC for remote pilots? A. 0.08% B. 0.04% ✅ C. 0.02%
It was exciting to me when I joined the City of Garland in the early 1970s. Working in municipal government was not something I had considered when I received my BBA in Accounting. I never really wanted to be an accountant. My true love was Budgeting and Cost Accounting. The gift I really received was the introduction to Utility Rate Making. Garland not only had Water & Sewer Utilities, but the city also had an Electric Utility. I was also fortunate to work with excellent outside Rate Consultants. The big present wrapped with a nice bow was the concept of Peak Demand vs Average Demand in utility systems. From there, I realized the concept applied to roadways and many other aspects of municipal services. LFM
The Quick Math (so this posting makes sense)
Every discussion about data centers and electricity should begin with two simple metrics: load factor and peak demand.
Load factor (LF) = Average demand ÷ Peak demand.
Peaking factor (the inverse) = Peak ÷ Average = 1/LF.
Example (same annual energy, different load factors): Suppose a data center averages 50 MW (megawatts or one million watts) of demand across the year. The perfect situation would be if there were businesses with a 100% load factor, meaning a business used the same amount of power every single hour (actually every minute) of the year.
At 50% LF, the peaking factor is 2.0. That means Peak = 100 MW.
At 75% LF, the peaking factor is 1.333. That means Peak ≈ 66.7 MW.
Takeaway: By raising the load factor from 50% to 75%, the required peak capacity falls by about 33% while delivering the same yearly energy.
And here’s why that matters: Texas utilities and ERCOT must size substations, feeders, and generation to meet the peak, not the average.
Homes conversion rule of thumb:
1 MW ≈ 250 Texas homes at summer peak (based on ~4 kW per home).
1 MW ≈ 625 homes on an annual-energy basis (average load ~1.6 kW per home).
So a 100 MW campus is the equivalent of a new mid-sized city landing on your grid overnight.
The Perfect Story and Outcome
Now picture the ideal case. A fast-growing tech firm proposes a 100 MW data campus in Texas. Instead of rushing, city leaders and the utility sit down with the company at the start and insist on clear answers. The questions are simple but critical:
What will your peak demand be, and how will you manage it during the state’s hottest afternoons?
Who pays for the new substation and feeders, and who carries the risk if you scale back or leave?
How do we ensure your taxable value stays meaningful even after your servers depreciate?
What tangible benefits will our community see, beyond the building itself?
On the grid: The company commits to a high load factor and pledges to curtail 20–30 MW during ERCOT’s four summer peaks. The new substation and feeders are paid through contribution in aid of construction (CIAC), so residents will never face stranded costs like the costly investment itself.
On the finances: Abatements are milestone-based—tied to actual MW energized, not just breaking ground. Valuation floors lock in a taxable base for servers and electrical gear, guaranteeing a predictable $5–10 million per year for schools, police, and parks.
On jobs and training: The campus directly employs about 60 skilled staff for operations. But the developer also funds a community-college training pipeline in IT and electrical trades, seeding hundreds of local careers. The construction phase delivers hundreds of short-term jobs for two years.
On resources: The data hall commits to water-efficient cooling, capped at a set gallon-per-MW threshold with quarterly reporting. A community benefit fund supplements fire protection and road upgrades near the campus.
On politics: Hearings are calm because everything is transparent. Residents know in plain English that their bills won’t rise, because the project carries its own risk.
Outcome: Five years later, the facility hums steadily, the schools are flush with additional tax revenue, and the city is recognized as a model for how to land high-tech investment without burdening households or small businesses.
What Could Go Wrong? (Case Narratives)
Of course, not every story ends this way. Around the country, major data-center projects have stumbled, been cancelled, or backfired in ways that offer hard lessons for Texas communities.
Corporate pullback after big promises — Microsoft
In 2025, Microsoft canceled or walked away from about 2,000 MW of planned data center capacity in the U.S. and Europe. Analysts cited oversupply compared with near-term demand. Utilities and communities that had already been preparing for those loads were left with planning costs and the risk of stranded substations.
Lesson for Texas: Even blue-chip firms are not risk-free. Cities must require CIAC, minimum bills, demand ratchets, and parent guarantees so residents aren’t forced to backfill the shortfall if plans change.
Court voids approvals after years of work — Prince William County, Virginia
In August 2025, a Virginia judge voided the rezonings for the “Digital Gateway” project—37 data centers on 1,700 acres—citing legal defects in notice and hearings. Years of planning collapsed overnight.
Lesson for Texas: Keep zoning and notice airtight. Add regulatory failure clauses in agreements so if courts unwind approvals, the city isn’t on the hook.
Political rejection at the finish line — College Station, Texas
On September 11, 2025, the College Station City Council unanimously rejected a proposed 600 MW data campus after residents raised concerns about grid strain, noise, water use, and meager job counts. The rejection stopped the project before construction—but it revealed how quickly sentiment can flip.
Lesson for Texas: Require peak-hour commitments (4CP curtailment), publish MW timelines, and cap water usage. Transparency eases public concerns and avoids last-minute backlash.
Industry-wide pauses — Meta redesigns for AI
Between 2022 and 2024, Meta paused more than a dozen U.S. projects to redesign for artificial intelligence. Sites like Mesa, Arizona slipped years behind schedule. Communities banking on near-term tax revenue saw gaps in their budgets.
Lesson for Texas: Tie abatements to energized MW milestones. If load slips, abatements pause until actual demand materializes.
Subsidy blow-ups — Texas and beyond
By 2025, Texas’ data center sales-tax exemptions ballooned from $157 million to more than $1 billion per year in foregone revenue. Other states saw similar overruns as projects multiplied faster than expected.
Lesson for Texas: Model depreciation and appeals honestly. Use valuation floors in agreements, and don’t oversell the net gain at ribbon-cuttings.
Local backlash stalls projects — Central Texas
In Central Texas, residents have already forced pauses or redesigns of major projects, citing water stress, noise, and grid strain. CyrusOne and others adjusted timelines under pressure.
Lesson for Texas: Put MW forecasts, curtailment commitments, and water-use data in plain English. Opaqueness breeds opposition.
Who Pays When a Big Customer Leaves?
In Texas, fixed delivery costs don’t vanish if a large customer fails or exits. Unless safeguards are in place, those costs roll into the next rate case and land on residents and small businesses.
Protective tools include:
CIAC: Customer funds all dedicated substations/feeders.
Facilities charges: Monthly fees for customer-specific assets.
Contract demand and minimum bills: Revenue stability even if load shrinks.
Demand ratchets: If they ever peak high once, they pay a portion of that demand for future months.
Parent guarantees or letters of credit: Real money backing early-exit costs.
Peak-hour curtailment covenants: Written commitments to reduce load during ERCOT’s four summer peaks.
These tools are standard in Texas utility practice. The only mistake is failing to insist on them.
Bringing It Home to Collin & Denton (DFW)
The Dallas–Fort Worth market is growing fast: nearly 600 MW operating and another 600 MW under construction, almost all pre-leased. In Collin and Denton counties, just two or three large campuses can rival the load of an entire mid-size city.
That’s why development agreements must:
Stage energization in MW blocks,
Require 4CP curtailment reporting, and
Hard-wire CIAC plus facilities charges so no “stranded substation” ever lands on residents.
Conclusion: Planning With Eyes Wide Open
Data centers are the backbone of cloud computing, e-commerce, and artificial intelligence. For Texas, they promise billions in private investment and hundreds of millions in taxable value. But their true footprint is measured in megawatts, not headcount.
Handled well—with CIAC, ratchets, valuation floors, and peak-hour curtailment—they can be stable anchors of local finance. Handled poorly, they can leave residents paying for stranded substations, foregone tax revenue, and empty server halls.
The “perfect story” shows it can be done right. The failures across the country show what happens when it isn’t. For Texas cities, the path forward is clear: land the investment, but make the project carry the risk—not your ratepayers.
Contract terms cities and utilities should insist on (plug-and-play list)
CIAC for all dedicated facilities (feeders, substation bays, transformers).
Facilities charge (monthly) on any utility-owned dedicated equipment.
Contract demand with a minimum bill and demand ratchet.
Parent guarantee / letter of credit sized to cover early exit and decommissioning.
Peak-hour curtailment targets (spell out dates/hours and telemetry).
Milestone-based incentives (abatement pauses if MW milestones slip).
Valuation floors for server personal property and clear depreciation schedules.
Quarterly public reporting: MW online, curtailment at peaks, water usage if relevant.
DFW planning checklist (Collin & Denton emphasis)
Get the MW ramp (Year 1–5), contract demand, and minimum bill in writing.
Require CIAC + facilities charges so bespoke assets aren’t rate-based on everyone.
Bake in peak-hour curtailment commitments (the four summer peaks).
Tie local incentives to energized MW, not just building permits.
Set valuation floors and independent appraisal rights.
Secure credit support (parent guarantee or LOC) sized for the dedicated build.
Publish quarterly progress (MW online and peak reductions) to keep trust with residents.
Sources (selected)
Corporate pullback: Microsoft cancellations ≈ 2,000 MW (TD Cowen). Reuters+1
Court reversal: Prince William “Digital Gateway” rezonings voided (Aug. 2025). Data Center Dynamics+1
Political rejection:College Station votes down 600 MW sale (Sept. 2025). Data Center Dynamics+1
Industry-wide pause/redesign: Meta paused >12 builds; Mesa AZ delay to 2025. Tech Funding News+1
Subsidy growth: Texas data-center tax costs > $1 B/yr; spikes across states. Good Jobs First+1
DFW market scale and pre-leasing: CBRE market profiles and releases (H1/H2 2024–2025). CBRE+2CBRE+2
Let's Talk About It, Lewis! 
You must be logged in to post a comment.