Our city council showed some leadership in it’s April 24, 2014 meeting.
Items 14.3 and 14.4 were items that contemplated trading money with the state of Texas for various projects.
City staff told us that the state wanted to make aesthetic improvements to bridges that cross over I-10 near downtown El Paso. The improvements contemplated did not improve pedestrian access, the state funds that they wanted to use were not eligible for that purpose, the state funds needed to be spent for pedestrian access and wayfinding.
In a typically convoluted formula the city was to give money to the state that the state would use to dress up the bridges. In return the state would contribute funds to the city to be used for pedestrian wayfinding and city median and parkway landscaping and improving projects.
Necessities
Thankfully a city represented stepped in and expressed his view that there were public safety issues in his district that were more important than making some bridges look better. He complained that there are significant arterial roads in his district that do not have lighting and that public safety is being ignored. The deputy city manager making the presentation told council that the funds being discussed could be designated to resolve the deficiency he was speaking of.
Other city representatives then agreed and stated that there were public safety issues in their districts that could be addressed with roadway median lighting.
Confusion
The discussion was a long one. City representatives asked some questions that could not be answered with a simple yes or no. The deputy city manager failed to explain the various complexities of the issues. She gave what appeared to be different answers depending upon how a question was phrased. My take on the discussion is that she did not anticipate council wanting to get to the heart of the manner and as a result gave the simplistic and often misleading answers that city staff often gives in an effort to quiet council.
Yes or no
At one point a city representative asked if the proposed wayfinding expenditures were associated with the ball park. It was a simple yes or no question. The answer was yes.
The city manager and another city representative entered the conversation and told us that the expenditures were not related to the ball park. They had been planned long before the ball park was started. Yes the project concerned areas physically adjacent to the ball park but those changes were going to be made even if the ball park was not built on the new city hall site.
No one explained how the project could possibly benefit anyone if the new ball park was not built.
Frustration
Council clearly expressed it’s frustration and outrage at the way city staff has been manhandling them over the years. Questions about funding were not clearly answered.
Notably the city’s chief financial officer and candidate for the job of city manager was no where to be seen.
Council ultimately agreed to the swap of money with the condition that the projects that the city will manage will be brought before council for decisions about how and where the money will be spent.
In this case council did not bow to city management.
Something got better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
And, this treatment of Council by the City Manager (and her staff) is the best argument for why we do NOT need a City Manager! We got along OK before John Cook foisted this unnecessary expense and general waste of money on the taxpayers of this City. City Council should be aware of what the City needs, without having to depend on anyone other than their constituents. Meanwhile, all over the City I still see streets that are in very bad condition, badly in need of repaving (with even more money wasted on the white paint to reline them, and to add the poorly planned and executed Bike lanes), and our police cars are a disgrace!
LikeLike
The CM form was passed in Joe Wardy’s administration and Joe did not give up his leadership because there was a CM on the org chart. That happened later under John’s leadership.
LikeLike
Excellent point in the article. The project was decided long before the was built. BUT, notice they didn’t state how long before. Sleight of hand and luckily council asked the correct questions. Even worse, two of her protégés wants to get the BM job. Hhhhmmm, better think that choice.
Wilson is still trying appease the stadium owners even as she has one foot in the door to leave. Please no extension of her contract, let her go.
One more point, they need to dig deeper to determine how and who made the deal.
LikeLike
CC has no idea how much whitewash is thrown over what they hear from city managers. No idea. I was there and I saw it.
LikeLike
question 1 for all CM candidates : what do you think about how our past City Manager handled the ballpark and tearing down city hall situation ? how did she handle it and how hard did she work to get the citizens(other than Foster and Hunt) a fair deal ? any one of these candidates that think Wilson did a good job should be dismissed and the CC should look for some more candidates. also, how come that rick person guy who wrote an editorial wasnt included in the candidates. granted being from California(or Mexifornia) knocks him out in my opinion, but he at least is as good a candidate as any of these. he even wrote an opinion in the Times.
LikeLike