More on the roll-out (roll over) plan

February 6, 2013

Yesterday I wrote about the city’s proposed bond roll-out plan.

Looking at it more closely I see that staff has chosen to categorize  project status as MP (for Master Planning), B (Bid Activity), L (Land Acquisition), D (Design), or C (Construction).

I see many projects that are designated C meaning the phase the city puts them in is construction.

I don’t see a single B for bidding.  Have they already done the bidding?  Doesn’t hiring a contractor come before starting construction?

The city’s fiscal year starts September 1.  We are now five months through fiscal year 2013.  According to the document the city plans to go through the whole process (planning, land acquisition, design, bidding, construction) for some of the projects in the remaining seven months of this year.  I guess maybe they plan to cut corners.  Doing the right thing seems to take too much time.

One project that caught my attention is listed as “Convention Center North Pedestrian Pathway”.  The city plans to spend $500 thousand on  this item.  What is this?  The convention center is bounded on the north by the Bataan Memorial Trainway which puts the trains below street level.  Is the city planning to build a path over this?

North from the convention center, the adjacent facility will be our new ball park.  Is this project really part of the ball park and have we been fooled into financing it through the bond issue?

We were told that the ball park would be primarily financed through the hotel occupancy tax.  Is this a way of burying part of the true costs of the ball park?

We deserve better

Brutus

3 Comments | City government, Purchasing | Permalink
Posted by Cato

What committee? We didn’t promise to listen!

February 5, 2013

Tuesday’s (February 5, 2013) city council agenda has item 11 on it.  The text is “Presentation, discussion and action on the proposed three-year implementation plan for projects authorized under the 2012 Quality of Life General Obligation Bond for the purposes of constructing new and improved amenities for parks and recreation facilities, open space improvements, libraries, museums, the Zoo, neighborhood improvements and cultural and performing arts facilities.”  You can read the attachment here.

The presentation is from the interim city engineer.  The are setting the schedule of what gets done and when.

What happened to the Bond Overview Advisory Committee?  Remember them?  The committee was formed to assure the citizens (crazies and amateurs to some down at the city) that the bond money would be spent properly.  I previously wrote about how council wanted to stack the board after the bonds passed.  The post was named Council Deceit.  Now in addition to stacking the board they appear to be ignoring it.

Why is this presentation coming from the interim city engineer?  Why is council proposing to take “action”?  Where is the input from the committee?

For that matter why isn’t the committee listed on the city web site where the other boards and committees are?  Have they even held a meeting?  Are they going to?  What about public participation?

City staff may be able to rush the committee into the council meeting.  Make no mistake though, the presentation is from city staff without the oversight committee.  Page 3 of the presentation is titled “Plan Approach”.  The Bond Overview Advisory Committee (BOAC) is not even mentioned.

The duties of the BOAC are “The BOAC shall meet at least quarterly to review information from applicable City Departments regarding the voter approved 2012 Bond Issue Projects (2012 Bond Projects) for the purpose of reporting periodically, in conjunction with City staff, but not less than twice a year, to the Mayor and Council on the status of progress of the 2012 Bond Projects.”

So now city staff comes forward and wants council to approve their three year implementation plan, evidently without the BOAC being involved.

Unbelievable!

We deserve better

Brutus

1 Comment | City government | Permalink
Posted by Cato

No voters wanted

February 4, 2013

Today (February 4, 2013) is the day that hearings start in Travis County relative to the City of El Paso wanting a declaratory judgment that what it has done to finance the ball park and move city hall is legal.

Declaratory judgment  explains the issue.

City council could have had the hearings in El Paso. The law gave them a choice. Local judges would probably have run from the case, but a visiting judge from out of town could easily have been appointed.

If the hearings were in El Paso we would have had an opportunity to voice our thoughts. The city chose to have the hearings in Travis County so that we would not attend.

This single act shows most clearly that we have a run-away city council that does not want input from the voters.

Shame!

The voting results that show who is doing this to us can be seen here on pages 17 and 18.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Cato

Leave a Comment » | City government, Open Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Cato

I want a fancy office

February 3, 2013

A friend asked me a great question the other day.

“If the city has moved IT (information technology) out to the airport why can’t they just stay there?”

According to the El Paso Times “about $1.8 million, was used to move the information technology department and a lot of sensitive, heavy equipment such as Sun Metro’s automatic vehicle locator system, fiber optics and the public safety network.”

OK they moved.  Are they somehow crippled?  Are they working ok?  Is the department failing to provide services that are necessary?  Is this like ousting children and citizens from a recreation center in the name of quality of life (see So much for quality of life)?

If they have moved and are functioning, why not leave them there?  If they have moved and are not functioning, who can we fire?

The current plan is to move them into the Luther building after spending $11.5 million to remodel the building.  That will take a while.

The presentation made to the public and city council on August 7, 2012 listed as a key objective “Relocate IT and City Development department only once”.

Moving all that equipment and connecting stuff another time cannot be cheap.

We deserve better

Brutus

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

Doubt

February 2, 2013

Tuesday’s (January 29, 2013) city council agenda has an item (5g) that proposes that the city sell a little more than 15 acres of land to the El Paso Independent School District.

I don’t know if this is the right thing to do or not.  I do know that there is a problem with the process though.

The city’s chief financial officer is  member of the board of managers that the Texas education commissioner appointed to strip the elected trustees  of their powers.

City — school district.  Is it fair to assume that the word “chief” means that the chief financial officer is in charge of all finances?  The sale of the property is for money.  Which pocket is being represented here?

Let me spell it out for them.  C O N F L I C T  that’s conflict!

Maybe the commissioner was not thinking when he made the appointment.  The chief financial officer however should have declined the new post.

Why even take the chance of looking  ike you are not doing the right thing?  Maybe the chief financial officer does not care what us “crazies” and “amateurs” think.  After all we are only citizens.

We deserve better

Brutus

1 Comment | City government, El Paso Independent School District, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »