elpasospeak

None of our elected city leaders seemed to be concerned about the ethics of the money swap that the city engaged in with the state of Texas last week.

The state had money that could only be used for pedestrian wayfinding and facility enhancements related to pedestrian access.

The city had money that it was going to spend for wayfinding and facility enhancements related to pedestrian access.

The two governments decided to swap money with the state funding the pedestrian things and the city giving the state money for aesthetic enhancements to bridges.

Both sides agreed to swap $10 million each.  I give you 10, you give me 10.

City staff wants us to believe that this is tied to another $6 million or so that the state was already going to spend.

Either way you look at it the money swap was designed to circumvent rules that control how money is to be spent.  The city manager once again presented a crisis situation to council–do it this week or lose the opportunity.

The intended result would have been that the city got both their pedestrian improvements and beautification money for the bridges over I-10 near downtown.  Council may have been able to divert those funds away from the bridges toward public safety lighting projects around town.  I guess that we will have to see if that can be done.

They seem to think that rules are made to be bent.

We deserve better

Brutus

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