What’s important

March 19, 2014

With the construction of our new ball park supposedly on schedule for an April 28, 2014 opening, we might want to look at how the city is doing with it’s other construction projects.

This graphic was taken directly from the city’s web site the other day.

lutherschedule

Let’s see.  Fall has come and gone.  Winter will be over in a few days.  March 20 is the start of spring this year.

The city has not moved into the Luther/Mulligan building yet.  As for the development center building, the city is now telling us that they will be able to move in sometime in April.  Evidently it is harder to build some things on time than others.

We deserve better

Brutus

3 Comments | Ball park, City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

A name that will live in infamy

March 15, 2014

This post is not intended to highlight an event or present facts.

The post reflects my opinion.

I think that naming a restaurant in the new ball park “City Hall Grill” is a horrible act.

I can only think that the name was chosen either out of insensitivity or a desire to make an “in your face” statement.

Either way it will be a constant reminder to those of us who while not opposed to the new ball park were opposed to tearing down city hall.

We deserve better

Brutus

11 Comments | Ball park, City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Glass house resident throwing stones

March 14, 2014

According to the Times our city manager is upset that a government agency can’t get it’s numbers right.  She evidently wrote this to our chief appraiser:

“A (valuation) variance of this nature is egregious and on the surface seems either irresponsible or incompetent,” Wilson wrote. “Per the City Council’s direction, I am filing a formal complaint with you, the CAD (district) Board, and State Comptroller and asking that immediate measures be taken to prevent this from happening again.”

What about?

What will the real cost of moving city hall be?  Her chief financial officer told us it would be $33 million.  The costs we know about at this point exceed $70 million.

The ball park was supposed to cost $50 million according to her crew.  We are now over $64 million without counting the $17 million in extra financing costs because they were  either “irresponsible or incompetent”.

Responsibility

And then there is the question of why she did not make allowances for the huge increase in valuation when developing the city budget.  The fact that she had to cut the budget mid-year is a testament to her actions or failure to act.

We deserve better

Brutus

6 Comments | Ball park, City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

New and de-proved

March 5, 2014

It’s hard to tell the same lie twice.

Item 9.1 on the regular city council agenda of February 25, 2014 is an example.

Our city’s chief financial officer made a presentation supporting the expenditure of $45 million to build a rental car parking facility at the airport.  The facility is to be funded by a customer facility charge of $3.50 per day on each customer renting a motor vehicle from an airport rental company.  They started collecting this charge in February of 2012.

Remember that the chief financial officer has been projecting a 3% increase in hotel occupancy taxes.  More shortfalls explained that the actual numbers are down by 3.1% this year, leaving a shortfall of 6.1%.

New and de-proved

The airport presentation projects a 1% increase in vehicle rentals each year.

Look at column H in the chart from her presentation:

airportcfc

Remember that many of the people that rent motel rooms arrive in rented cars.  Look for this to affect the financing of the ball park.

We deserve better

Brutus

5 Comments | Ball park, City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Wireless and truth less

March 3, 2014

Consent agenda item 4.2 on the March 4, 2014 city council agenda is about network wiring for the new ball park.

The posting indicates  “This is a Venue Project purchase exempt from the competitive bidding laws”.  Nice, huh?

The backup material indicates that  the project was bid out,  however, through the construction manager at risk process.  Three bids were received.  What is unusual here is that the bid tabulation sheet showing who bid what is not shown.  Nice, huh?

Some may feel that the omission is not important.  It is to me if city staff is not telling the truth.

The backup material for item 4.4 on the same agenda recommends spending over $300,000 with the same company for  a wireless access system for the ball park.  City staff wrote that the project was also bid through the construction manager at risk process.

Not true

I follow much of the city’s bidding.  This project was not bid through the construction manager at risk process.  Further, I don’t see where the city issued a formal bid request.

We deserve better

Brutus

7 Comments | Ball park, City government, Purchasing | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »