Is there any truth to the rumor I heard after last week’s gully washing rain storm?
It seems that the public service board is worried that after all the money they have charged us in storm water fees they will still not have enough money to control the occasional flooding.
The rumored solution? Flatten Mount Franklin.
Actually I’m just kidding here.
Then again, it might be cheaper.
We deserve better
Brutus
6 Comments | 
City government | 
Permalink
Posted by Brutus
The city council agenda item that would allow the city to issue notice of intent to issue $62 million of certificates of obligation is another example of the double dealing we are seeing from our city government.
The backup material reads “for the purpose of paying contractual obligations to be incurred for the construction …”.
While the backup material says that they want the money to pay for bills to be incurred, the city has evidently already built the projects and rung up the bills. This was printed in the Times the other day:
Mark Sutter, the city’s chief financial officer, who will give a quarterly financial report on Tuesday, said the city has routinely adopted the use of certificates of obligation around this time of year “to reimburse itself for expenditures made on capital project debt authorizations that council has approved for various projects.”
In this case, Sutter said, the $62 million reimbursement covers four authorizations: transportation funding of March 2010, transportation funding of November 2010, short term capital improvement projects of April 2011, and street infrastructure of June 2012.
“The reimbursements cover expenditures since the last resolution (approximately April last year),” he said.
We deserve better
Brutus
13 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
The city council agenda for the Tuesday, May 19, 2015 meeting includes an item that would authorize the city to announce that they want to issue $62 million of certificates of obligation.
They evidently want the money to allow them to pay for a whole laundry list of public works projects.
This part of the list caught my attention:
“… renovating, improving and equipping City Hall and other City administrative facilities…”
Details of how much is to be spent on each project are evidently none of our business.
We deserve better
Brutus
7 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
Helen Marshall beat me to the punch on this one. As usual Helen is spot on.
This from Helen Marshall:
While closing these streets to railroad crossings may be a good idea, the only reason the city is doing it is a quid pro quo for the “air rights” needed to build the stadium over the UP line below.
Total cost is said to be $1.67 million (let’s see if that holds). Add that to the cost of the stadium
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_28102628/two-central-el-paso-railroad-crossings-to-close-starting-Monday
We deserve better
Brutus
10 Comments | Ball park, City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
Someone sent this in:
Don’t expect to begin enjoying San Jacinto Park anytime soon. elpasonaturally has learned that the contractor, Basic IDIQ, has defaultied. Item 16.3 on next week’s regular City Council agenda simply reads “Discussion and action on the construction of San Jacinto Park.” It was placed on the agenda by Rep. Cortney Niland. The park is in her district. There are no back-up materials for this agenda item. Executive Session Item 2 reads “San Jacinto Plaza Redesign, Solicitation No. 2014-043 (551.071)” Again no supporting materials.
At least we saved the trees (or most of them) for now. The question now arises whether the trees will be properly maintained and cared for during what will be a very long time to finish the park.
14 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
You are currently browsing the archives for the City government category.
elpasospeak 
You must be logged in to post a comment.