Yesterday I wrote about the city’s proposed bond roll-out plan.
Looking at it more closely I see that staff has chosen to categorize project status as MP (for Master Planning), B (Bid Activity), L (Land Acquisition), D (Design), or C (Construction).
I see many projects that are designated C meaning the phase the city puts them in is construction.
I don’t see a single B for bidding. Have they already done the bidding? Doesn’t hiring a contractor come before starting construction?
The city’s fiscal year starts September 1. We are now five months through fiscal year 2013. According to the document the city plans to go through the whole process (planning, land acquisition, design, bidding, construction) for some of the projects in the remaining seven months of this year. I guess maybe they plan to cut corners. Doing the right thing seems to take too much time.
One project that caught my attention is listed as “Convention Center North Pedestrian Pathway”. The city plans to spend $500 thousand on this item. What is this? The convention center is bounded on the north by the Bataan Memorial Trainway which puts the trains below street level. Is the city planning to build a path over this?
North from the convention center, the adjacent facility will be our new ball park. Is this project really part of the ball park and have we been fooled into financing it through the bond issue?
We were told that the ball park would be primarily financed through the hotel occupancy tax. Is this a way of burying part of the true costs of the ball park?
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
Speaking of burying costs, Courtney Niland is quoted in the TIMES today, saying: “The city has already spent around $300 million publicly funding Downtown revitalization.”
The word “spent” means that those expenditures were in the past and are in addition to the ballpark and other downtown-related expenditures that will be made using the quality of life bond proceeds. Perhaps Ms. Niland and her colleagues would be so kind as to provide the public with a detailed accounting of precisely how and when that $300 million was spent.
I am guessing that the $300 million includes the cost of the current city hall, which is about to be destroyed. If city hall is truly the piece of #%&! that many say it is, that begs the question: were any of the current city engineering staff or favored construction companies involved in building it? If so, I for one don’t want them involved in “investing” the bond proceeds. And if it was so poorly maintained, let’s make certain the maintenance and engineering staff is replaced before we build all these great next facilities.
Imagine what’s going to happen to maintenance quality now that the chief engineer if focused 100% on the ballpark.
LikeLike
The very core of your writing wlhsit sounding reasonable in the beginning, did not work perfectly with me personally after some time. Somewhere within the paragraphs you were able to make me a believer but just for a while. I still have got a problem with your jumps in assumptions and you would do well to help fill in all those breaks. In the event that you actually can accomplish that, I could undoubtedly end up being impressed.
LikeLike
Ersain,
Unfortunately, most of us in the general public are often left to draw our own conclusions because the city shares limited information with us. In fact, those who “serve” go to great lengths to prevent us from getting details as evidenced by the recent push to restrict access to public records.
The $300 million number was Ms. Niland’s number — not mine. I said that it would be nice for them to tell us where the $300 million was spent. I have subsequently seen that number used by public officials or the media a couple of times since Ms. Niland first threw it out there. If a city official uses a huge number like that, especially in a boastful manner, it’s only fair and reasonable that they be asked to explain it.
City officials and managers are on record having talked about the poor condition of the current city hall and the tremendous cost that would be required to bring it up to THEIR standards. That was part of their stated justification for demolishing it, despite the fact that the building in only about 20 years old. So I think my concerns about the competency of those who built and maintained the current city hall are perfectly logical.
But hey, call me crazy if you want.
LikeLike