No one will notice

April 16, 2013

This article in The El Paso Times failed to tell us what is really happening.

The reporter tells us that the bond rating organization named Fitch Ratings gave an A plus rating to the $51.4 million of city bonds being issued to finance the ball park.

You will remember that the city approved “a contract of about $40 million for the construction manager at-risk, the general contractor that will subcontract and oversee all the trade companies that will work on the Triple-A minor league baseball stadium. The remaining $10 million of the ballpark’s cost is for architects, consultants and other work to be performed before the ballpark is built” according to the Times.

40 + 10 = 51.4

What? The Times failed to explain the increase from the $50 million the city keeps claiming the ball park will cost.

The city formed the City of El Paso Downtown Development Corporation to organize the financial matters relating to the ball park. Earlier reporting in the Times quoted the chief financial officer of the city as saying “forming the corporation — a recommendation from the Texas Attorney General’s office, which reviews and approves bond issues — allows it to issue bonds without having to have a coverage ratio or a debt reserve fund, which in turn allows it to borrow at lower interest rates than the city could.”

Does the corporation have the authority to issue more than the $50 million we voted on? Here is the ballot language that the voters passed:

VENUE PROJECT AND HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX PROPOSITION

“AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS, TO DESIGNATE THE MINOR LEAGUE BASEBALL STADIUM PROJECT AS A SPORTS AND COMMUNITY VENUE PROJECT WITHIN THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH
APPLICABLE LAW AND TO IMPOSE A TAX ON THE OCCUPANCY OF A ROOM IN A HOTEL LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY, AT THE MAXIMUM RATE OF TWO PERCENT (2%) OF THE PRICE PAID FOR SUCH ROOM, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FINANCING SUCH VENUE PROJECT.”

What’s missing?

A dollar limit for starters. We agreed to raise the tax by 2%. We did not limit the amount of money that can be spent on the ball park. We did not vote to spend a certain amount. We voted to raise a tax. How much council spends is up to them.

A + is a two step downgrade.

Municipal bond ratings go from AAA (the best) down to AA+, AA, AA-, A+. A, and even lower.

Fitch rates El Paso municipal bonds as AA. These special ball park bonds have been rated two steps lower (riskier). A lower rating means a higher (more expensive) interest rate. Our chief financial officer told us that the new development corporation would allow us to borrow at lower interest rates than the city.

That does not look like it is true.

It does not look like the Times is watching out for our interests either.

Muckraker

Leave a Comment » | Ball park, City government, El Paso Times | Permalink
Posted by Muckraker

Proposition 6, civil

April 15, 2013

SHALL SECTIONS 6.1-1, 6.1-2, 6.1-3, 6.1-4, 6.1-6 D, AND 6.13-8 OF THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED, RELATING TO THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION: TO STATE THE PURPOSE OF THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM; TO PROVIDE FOR THE SPECIFIC DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION; TO ESTABLISH UNIFORM STARTING DATES FOR THE TERMS OF OFFICE FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION; TO PROHIBIT THE APPOINTMENT OF A PERSON CLOSELY RELATED TO A CITY EMPLOYEE TO THE COMMISSION; TO SPECIFY THE TIME FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE ACTION ON PROPOSED RULES; AND TO PROVIDE WHEN THE COMMISSION MAY REDUCE DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE AND RE-HEAR A DISCIPLINARY APPEAL?

That is proposition 6.

I have not heard anything negative about this from the civil service commission.

My assumption is that the commission would be howling if they were not happy with this.

My concern is that once again specific language has not been shown to us.

Please study this and vote in May.

We deserve better

Brutus

Leave a Comment » | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Proposition 5, fox in the henhouse

April 14, 2013

The ballot language from the city website:

SHALL SECTION 3.20, ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY, OF THE CITY CHARTER BE CREATED, SECTION 3.6 BE AMENDED, AND SECTION 2.2 G BE DELETED, RELATING TO ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY: TO MOVE AND AMEND THE PROVISION GOVERNING THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION TO GIVE THE COMMISSION THE POWER TO ENFORCE ITS DECISIONS BY ASSESSING CIVIL FINES AND SANCTIONS AS AUTHORIZED BY ORDINANCE; AND TO CREATE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT INTERNAL AUDIT FUNCTION AND A FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND AUDIT COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF THE AUDIT FUNCTION AND REVIEW CITY FINANCIAL POLICIES?

Then in a section titled “What It Does?” the city writes:

“Internal auditor shall be appointed and removed by the City Manager with the approval of City Council.”

What?  Appointed and removed by the city manager?  Are they nuts? Where does it say that in the proposition?  This is a fine example of how city staff intends to write whatever they want into the charter after you approve a general idea.

We should remember the El Paso Independent School District superintendent who is now in jail.  The school board says that they did not know what he was up to.  The auditor reported to the superintendent, not to the board, according to the superintendent.

The rest of the proposition regardless of any potential benefits that may come to us cannot overcome this fatal flaw.

We deserve better

Brutus

5 Comments | City government, El Paso Independent School District | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Not in my backyard, or maybe yes

April 14, 2013

The El Paso Inc. published a great piece about the city changing the zoning of major pieces of town in its March 31, 2013 issue.

The city wants to rezone more than one thousand acres thus affecting thousands of homes and businesses in the Mission Valley and Five Points neighborhoods.

Items 5E and  5F on the April 16, 2013 city council agenda would change the zoning to “Smartcode zone”, whatever that means.

The property owners bought their property under one set of zoning.  Now the city wants to change the rules thus restricting the actions of the owners differently than what they signed up for.

Is “Smartcode zone” a good idea?  I don’t know.

What is missing here is respect for the voters.  We have a city council whose membership is about to change taking the opportunity to force change on us as some of the council members slip into a well deserved state of public oblivion.

How much public discussion do you remember council promoting on this issue?

Why can’t the people vote on this?

Is council afraid that the voters would say no?  Once again does council need to show that they are right and that the citizens are incompetent to manage their own lives?  Is council better than the unwashed masses?

I don’t know how I would vote.  I do know that I hold anything that this council does in suspicion.

We deserve better

Brutus

1 Comment | City government, El Paso Inc., Open Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Proposition 4, the blank check

April 13, 2013

SHALL SECTION 3.2 AND 3.3 A OF THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SALARIES OF THE MAYOR AND DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES, AND PROHIBITIONS REGARDING OTHER EMPLOYMENT: TO PROVIDE THAT BEGINNING IN 2015, THE ANNUAL SALARY OF THE DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE SET EACH YEAR AT THE SAME AMOUNT AS THE HUD PROGRAM INCOME LIMITS MEDIAN INCOME FOR EL PASO COUNTY, AND THE ANNUAL SALARY OF THE MAYOR SHALL BE SET EACH YEAR AT 150% OF THAT AMOUNT; AND TO PROHIBIT COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM HOLDING ANY OTHER PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT CONTRARY TO STATE LAW?

That is the ballot language for proposition 4, directly from the city’s website.

This would give the mayor and the city council automatic salary adjustments each year.  No matter how much they ignore us or even disobey us they will get a new paycheck.

Go ask your boss for a similiar deal and see what happens.

The El Paso Inc. exposed another example of the duplicity and incompetence of a city staff member in their March 24, 2013 edition.  Evidently the city attorney was out stumping for the propositions (she should not be an advocate, she should see that what the city does and does not do is legal).  The article says that the city attorney said that the salary for a city representative is about $28,000 now and that if the proposition passes it would be about $42,000.  A citizen questioned the $14,000 pay raise and said “I’m voting against it”.

The El Paso Inc. indicated that the city attorney was wrong.  The city representatives get paid $29,000 a year now and would be raised to $50,500 per year if the proposition passes.

Was the city attorney lying or just wrong?  What, if anything, should we believe that she tells us?

By the way, the mayor’s salary would evidently go up to $75,250 from $28,500.

I don’t know how much they should be paid.  I do know that we should control it.  They have little enough allegiance to us now.

We deserve better.

Brutus

Leave a Comment » | City government, El Paso Inc. | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »