Top of the list

September 3, 2013

If paying high property taxes is your goal, El Paso is the place to be.

Getting Better

In For whom the bill tolls we saw that El Paso was the 6th most expensive city for property taxes on a $150,000 home among the largest 50 cities in the country for the year 2009.

We saw us getting closer to first place with a 2011 rating of 5th place.

These numbers come from the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence.  The issues of state income tax, average home values, and commercial taxation were covered in For whom the bill tolls.

And better

The 2012 numbers are out.  El Paso now ranks as the 4th most expensive city  using that same ranking study.

If our goal is to get to the top of that list we are well on our way.  We’ve steadily gotten higher on the list, going from 6th place to 5th and then to 4th.

More to come

The 2012 numbers are before demolishing city hall, remodeling new buildings for city staff, building the ballpark, building new hospital clinics, and the quality of life bonds we passed last year.

Wait until next year

We are seeing the local governments come forward with public and hidden tax increases.  If the cities above us on the list don’t get to work and raise more taxes it looks like we can get to the number 3 spot for 2013.

This 2011 US News and World Report article puts the 2009 median household income for El Paso as next to last among US metropolitan areas of 500,000 people or more.

We deserve better

Brutus


Editorial earthquake

September 2, 2013

The El Paso Times editorial of September 1, 2013  “Property tax path not sustainable” is remarkable.

The editorial points out “That increasing tax burden on homeowners is simply not sustainable.  That $600 increase over the past decade was money that homeowners couldn’t spend on major purchases or for their children’s education.  The tax increases have increased hardships on tens of thousands of families.”

Has something changed?

Does the Times suddenly really care about education?

I’m trying to figure out what the Times’ position is.  They  have supported the public spending spree we are witnessing, yet now they are saying that we cannot afford it.  These explanations come to mind:

  • They think that we need to stop the capital spending for a while.  After all we have already bailed them out of the building they could not afford as part of the city hall destruction, ball park construction, temporary city facilities binge that has cost us well over 120 million dollars so far.  Yes we tore down our children’s science museum and have no plans on the drawing board to replace it in the next three years, but all in all it is time to curtail the spending.
  • Somehow they did not know that the public works spending would increase taxes.  The editors recently learned that in order for governments to spend money they must collect taxes and fees.  Now they have learned and realize that their rent is going to increase.
  • They have decided to take their own advice.  They wrote “First, the public should not stand for grandstanding on tax and spending issues…If an elected official is going to oppose tax increases, he or she also must identify specific spending reductions.  El Paso cannot afford politicians who pander to various constituencies by supporting spending increases on the one hand while opposing taxes on the other.”  The same goes for newspapers.
  • September 1 in the newspaper world is like April 1 for the rest of us.

The editorial goes on to advise “Additionally, the governments should join together for taxpayer town halls, where the community can help identify spending priorities — and identify areas where local governments might cut back.”

Town halls?

Really?  In a community where city council denied the citizens the right to have an election that they called for by petition?  In a community where both city council and the El Paso Independent School District board of managers rearranged their agendas to make it more difficult for members of the public to be heard?  In a community where city council has been spending tax payer money to deny public information requests that the attorney general of Texas wrote must be released?  When we have a city manager who praises a city representative for being thoughtful and deliberate even though she considers her constituents?

Crazy ideas

In the spirit of the Times’ suggestion let me offer just a few ideas  that the average “crazy” in town might offer:

  • Don’t finish the Luther building.  The city IT department is located somewhere else and we have not heard that it is not capable of functioning.  There is already talk of building a new “municipal complex” in the next few years, thus wasting the money we are spending moving into temporary quarters.
  • Build one new health clinic.  The CEO of our county hospital told us that we would save 17 million dollars each year in emergency room costs if we built 150 million dollars worth of clinics.  Why not build one clinic, see if the apportionate savings materialize and then use the savings to build the next clinic?
  • Don’t let the city make the school district move their administration building, thus costing us at least 40 million dollars.
  • Stop supporting athletics programs at the community college
  • Stop the financing.  Start using the savings from one project to fund the next one.
  • Stop transferring the administration of public spending to non-elected groups like the Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority.
  • Get administrators in our local governments that care about the taxpayers.

Feel free to contribute your ideas through the comments mechanism of this blog.  We may not be a town hall but at least your ideas will be shared with the public.

I read the post that Brutus will publish tomorrow.  Don’t miss it.  Our situation is not improving.

Eternal vigilance is the cost of liberty.

Cato


Please explain

September 2, 2013

Item 10A on the regular agenda of the July 30, 2013 city council meeting is another purchasing item with problems.

The city went out for bids for building supplies (light bulbs and the like).   The deal is for about $180,000 per year for three years.

Seventeen firms were notified.  Six firms submitted bids.

City staff wants to disqualify two of the bids as non-responsive.  The agenda item proposes to give the business to the “lowest responsive” bid.

One national firm with a significant local presence is being disqualified because it “took exceptions to the contract clauses”.  This may be the right thing to do.  What is troubling here is that the bid analysis in the backup does not show what the firm’s bid amounts were.  Were they lower than the firm getting the business?  Did the city’s contract clauses serve to unnecessarily drive up the price of the items?  Is the national firm being unreasonable?

Another large local firm is being disqualified because “price list submitted did not match to City’s Cost offered by bidder”, whatever that means.

City could be right

The city could be right here.  What is troubling is that their explanation to council gives us no indication that this is the case.  What are the real reasons for the disqualifications?

The city needs to be more business friendly without rolling over.

We deserve better

Brutus


Decisions are easier if you only consider yourself

September 1, 2013

I saw this email (click twice to enlarge) on the Max Powers web site:

6a017ee48de122970d019aff174200970c

The email is a response from the city manager to a city representative’s earlier note.

I don’t think the city representative meant to have the city manager listen to the cold.  That would be hard to do.  I suspect that the representative meant to write “here” instead of “hear” in the subject line.

Freud or Machiavelli?

The city manager was thanking the representative for her work.  The manager wrote:

“You are very thoughtful and deliberative, even though you always consider the constituent bases affected.”

Does considering the constituent’s make it harder to be thoughtful and deliberative?  Are the interests of the constituents not worthy of consideration by a city official?

Is the city representative somehow wrong for considering the constituents?

I guess governing is simpler when you only consider what you want.

We deserve better

Brutus


Re-prints

August 30, 2013

Cato wrote about our former mayor trying to change the rules for his convenience.  The ex-mayor must think that he is special.

There were a couple of other things that I saw in the El Paso Times article.

The reporter wrote that council amended an ordinance and that “Cook was present at that meeting”.

Present?

Not only was he there, but he signed the ordinance!  Seeing that would require actually looking at the ordinance.  That would require investigation instead of just being the propagandist for the city.

If he thought the ordinance was unfair or unconstitutional he should have vetoed it.  Evidently when he thought it applied to other people it was acceptable.  When it is applied to him we have a different matter.

Misdemeanor

Quoting from the Times:

“City ordinance No. 017112 states that “any officer or employee who engages in lobbying activities that would require registration under the city’s lobbying ordinance during this 24 month period commits a misdemeanor.”

Horse feathers!

It says no such thing.  That is unless ordinance number 017112 that is posted on the city web site is not the real ordinance number 017112.  The city has been known to change the language of an ordinance after it is passed.  You know you just have to allow for Scrivener.

The ordinance does not include the word misdemeanor.  It does say that when elected city officials leave office they cannot act as a registered lobbyist or represent another person or organization in any formal or informal appearance before council or a city board or department.  To do so would be “unlawful”.  City code makes any unlawful act that does not have a specific penalty a misdemeanor.

Where did our reporter come up with what she wrote?  If she wants to take material from “talking papers” provided to her by the city, she should have the honesty to quote it as such.

Muckraker