What’s good for the goose is good for the gander

November 17, 2014

Our city attorney is having difficulty with some of the members of council.

Evidently some of the members want to change the manner in which her performance is reviewed.

She says that the new methods would not be consistent with her contract and has asked council to please respect her contract.

I agree with her.

It would also be nice if she and the team in place before our new city manager came in would have respected the contracts of the city’s vendors.

The old group strong armed and fired vendors with valid contracts frequently.

There are a whole bunch of companies that simply will no longer do business with the city.

We deserve better

Brutus

6 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Yet another tax increase coming

November 13, 2014

Well they’ve started.  Remember in 100 year storm, 250 year storm, do I hear 500 years? we talked about the recent rains and some city officials telling us that we had just had a 250 year storm.

They needed to go to 250 years because they had already told us that we had experienced a 100 year storm as part of their justification for the storm water fee that we are paying.

After the 2006 storms the city transferred the costs of managing the water out of the city’s general fund over to our water utility.  In the process they hit us with a double whammy.  A new charge of nearly $3 per month for residential users was instituted and as part two of the double whammy they did not reduce our city taxes.  The charge for businesses turned out to be much higher with some businesses paying thousands of dollars each year.

These charges used to be part of the city budget.  Now they are charged to us through our water bills.  They are nothing other  than a tax.

Of the $16 million that they collect for storm water each year only $3.9 million is spent on maintenance.  Another $1.7  is spent on general and administrative expenses.  The utility allocates $1.3  million to “indirect expenses” each year.  In other words they are charging us $3.0 million most of which probably goes to the city or to cover internal expenses.  Remember that the city got to reduce their general fund spending at the same time.

More

The water utility made a presentation at city council Tuesday, October 7, 2014.  They are now telling us that they do not have enough money and will need to increase the charge.  Their target was  just short of another $2 per month per residence.  They have to go through a public hearing process first.

Now one month later we hear that they want to increase their charge 8% every year for the foreseeable future.

We deserve better

Brutus

4 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

City–get off your duff!

November 9, 2014

How can we get the city to pay attention to the road and park disruptions that they are in charge of?

Many El Paso streets have been under construction for months stretching into years.  Country Club road and Fiesta drive are just two examples.

San Jacinto Square is not only an example of the incredibly slow pace that the city allows but it also will eventually show us again the dangers of making purchases from buy boards.  Good contractors were hurt in favor of a city favorite.  The cost overruns will be paid by the taxpayer.  No consideration will be given to getting rid of the people who wrote the bad specifications, or if the specifications were good then holding the contractor responsible.

On the other hand we have seen how quickly the city can move on some projects for some people.

We deserve better

Brutus

9 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Former mayor underperforms

November 8, 2014

Our former mayor just ran against one of the Bush family members for the office of State Land Commissioner.

The results?

Winning a statewide race is a challenge for democrats in Texas.

Their candidates for governor and lieutenant governor got 39% of the votes.  Most of their other candidates received about 38%.

Our former mayor posted a 35% result in his race for land commissioner.

I don’t recall reading about that in the Times.  One would think that the story would be of local interest.

There is a reason for what you don’t get to read in the Times.

On a positive note we can be relieved that he didn’t win.  He might have torn down the Alamo to make way for a ball park.

We deserve better

Brutus

3 Comments | City government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Running total

November 7, 2014

Some readers have asked recently if anyone knows what the total cost of the ball park is at this point.

These numbers are ones that I attribute to the cost.  I hope that the readers of this blog will help us to build a more accurate accounting.

Double your pleasure showed us that the $61 million in bonds will cost us $137,286,965.10 by the time we pay them off.  That is unless the folks down at the city refinance the deal again.

Opening day was about a “guaranteed maximum price agreement” with the ball park contractor.  The document excluded certain things from the price, like:

  • railroad platforms and bridge
  • railroad platform foundations
  • Missouri and Durango street improvements
  • offsite improvements/work (this probably includes the water and sewer work the city is not talking about as well as the pedestrian and road work around the park)
  • special construction provisions required at railroad
  • porcelain/art signage
  • 4 TOPP or 2 TOPP tables and loose chairs
  • aluminum and fabric sun shades

Train wreck was about the deals the city had to cut with a railroad in order to get a sliver of the land that the ball park now sits on.  In addition to the $238,810 the city had to pay for 8,684 square feet of land, paying $27.50 per square foot, the city had to sell two acres of land adjacent to the $27.50 land for $11.10 per square foot.  Citizens suffered the economic consequences of the city agreeing to close eight railroad crossings throughout the city as part of the land deals.

Shameless told us about a deal where the city gave the state $5 million to enhance bridges between Portfirio Diaz street and Missouri avenue.  The state will spend $2.7 million for two pedestrian overpasses going over the depressed train way leading into the ball park.  The state will also spend $800,000 dollars for pedestrian wayfinding in downtown.

Baseball art showed that the city was going to spend  $850,000 with three artists for work to be done at the ball park.

In El Paso quality of life update the fact that the city was spending $500,000 from quality of life bonds to build a pedestrian pathway into the ball park.

Shoes dropping addressed the fact that “El Paso Water Utilities will handle the work and pay to redo the water and sewer lines in the area…”

Various studies have been paid for relative to traffic, congestion, noise and vibration.

In addition, the sports group has agreed to pay up to $10 million outside of taxpayer money.

Moving city hall has now cost us over $70 million.

That gives us:

  • $137 million to pay off the bonds
  • $239 thousand to buy land from the railroad
  • $5 million to the state
  • $850 thousand for art
  • $500 thousand from the quality of life bonds
  • unknown amount for the water utility to do their work
  • $70 million to move city hall

I come up with about $220 million in capital costs.  Operating costs are another matter.

Not bad for a $35 million stadium that Inside job told us about.

We deserve better

Brutus

 

 

 

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »