I recently saw an old email from a former city representative who has now been elected to the EPISD school board but has not been seated. I would mention where I saw it if I could remember.
She was writing about the valuation issue with our local refinery and wrote:
“Western’s value went from $280,224,075 to over a billion dollars in one year. That is about a 200% increase.”
She wants to manage our children’s education?
We deserve better
Brutus
3 Comments | 
City government, El Paso Independent School District | 
Permalink
Posted by Brutus
New and de-proved was about the airport using a 1% growth rate in car rentals compared to the 6.1% shortfall that the city is experiencing with hotel occupancy taxes this year.
The February numbers for the airport show a 6.2% decrease in passenger traffic from last year. Freight is down 11.4%.
Last week the city revealed that they project city revenues to fall short of budget by 7.35 million dollars. With hotel occupancy taxes down the city will eventually have to dip into the general fund to pay for the ball park.
Home foreclosures in February doubled over last year. New home building permits are falling short of budget by 28.54%.
The Wright amendment is set to expire later this year. We should see fewer airline flights from Southwest Airlines as they will then be able to bypass El Paso on their way to the west coast.
We are not growing economically. None of us know how long this will last or how bad the situation will get.
Isn’t it time that we get the city’s finances aligned with reality?
We deserve better
Brutus
9 Comments | Ball park, City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
The El Paso Times editorial Stubborn judges should back down took the El Paso Council of Judges to task for their “unilateral decision to raise indigent defense fees”.
They wrote:
“These judges, who were not elected to make budget and tax decisions, have decided nonetheless to levy added costs amounting to about $500,000 the remainder of this year and $1 million next year. That forces the people who were elected to make such decisions — county Commissioners Court — to cut money elsewhere or raise taxes”.
The judges do have the right and the responsibility to set the rate of reimbursement. The Times knows this and even wrote in their December 27, 2013 editorial:
“The Council of Judges’ recent unilateral decision to raise attorney fees in indigent defense cases by $15 an hour is a classic example of the dysfunctional system set up by the Texas Constitution.”
Further, according to the Times:
“The judges requested a $10 an hour increase for attorney fees in indigent defense cases before the county budget was adopted in October. Commissioners rejected that proposal because the funding wasn’t available.”
The judges made a request for an increase in the reimbursement rate as part of the normal county budget process. The commissioners decided not to honor it.
The judges have the authority to set the rate. Commissioners have to pay it. Pretty simple really.
We elect judges in Texas. If our voters don’t approve of what they have done we will see new judges in the next election.
The Times evidently feels that their judgment should trump the Texas Constitution.
They also evidently feel that while it was good for the city to pay more than market value for the Times building it is not good for lawyers to get paid a fair rate to defend people who cannot afford a lawyer. Now they are taking on the United States Constitution.
How would the Times have responded if the city had used eminent domain to steal their building, or if the city had used code violations to condemn the building and then steal it?
Before the rate increase local lawyers were paid $75 per hour when they worked in court. Most of us pay more for plumbing.
We deserve better
Brutus
9 Comments | City government, County Government, El Paso Times | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
Item 5.2 on the city council regular agenda for April 2, 2014 is just another bad deal.
The item introduces a proposed ordinance to refinance bonds (in the amount of $85 million) that were issued in 2005. The chief financial officer is to make the presentation.
Evidently she will claim that the city will save about one million dollars a year by doing this.
The 2005 bonds were actually issued to refinance earlier ones, so they have already done this before with the same bond debt. Look at the first line under general obligations in the chart below.
What they are actually doing is extending the payout period from August 15, 2026 to December 31, 2039. Why? This way the principal payments are reduced and since they have to pay less against the principal hey can use the money to augment the city budget.
Certainly not the taxpayers or their children. Bond counsel will get paid, the financial advisers will get paid, there will be money for those issuing the bonds.
The city will be able to take about one million dollars a year and use it to pay for other things. We know that they are having revenue shortfalls. This will help them a bit.
In the meantime they are using a trick that will cost us dearly.
We deserve better
Brutus
11 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
The city finally posted the background material for item 11.2 on the March 25, 2014 city council agenda.
They need to cut $7.35 million from the budget because revenues are coming in less than they budgeted at the beginning of the year.
For now they have decided to cut $5.86 million and say that they will control the rest either “through hiring freeze or other operational controls” according to a presentation made by our chief financial officer earlier as part of item 11.1.
Sales taxes revenues are turning out to be 3.02% less than they budgeted. Franchise fees are coming in at 3.94% less than budget.
Fines and forfeitures are short by 23.46%. Is that why we see so many traffic and parking tickets being issued lately?
Residential building permits are an unfortunate 28.54% short. So much for growth.
Who’s getting cut? The police department is losing $1.24 million. The fire department will lose $486 thousand. They are also removing all capital funding for vehicle replacement.
Not everyone is getting axed. Our city attorney’s office is going from a council approved budget of $3.97 million to $4.8 million. Most of that money is for outside lawyers. Suing the attorney general of Texas to keep us from seeing records that should be open is evidently expensive.
To quote the city manager from a letter she wrote a few weeks ago, “A (valuation) variance of this nature is egregious and on the surface seems either irresponsible or incompetent…”.
I agree.
We deserve better
Brutus
4 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.