Michael Bray sent this in:
Well then! Transparency does not mean crystal clear!
Rearranging the Property Tax Deck Chairs
http://www.texastransparency.org/Special_Features/Bond_Elections/bond-master.php
Will they step up to the plate?
April 3, 2015As we know our city council imposed a “franchise fee” on our water utility as part of the budget process last year. This fee was in addition to the amounts that the city already charges the utility.
Council’s instructions to the utility board were to pass the fee on to the utility’s “nonresidential” customers. The board did as it was told. We have heard that the board feels that the franchise fee is inappropriate and that they would have liked to stay out of the issue.
The citizens know that the franchise fee is nothing other than a tax increase and that city council did not have the honesty to handle it as such.
Last week we saw the water utility board vote to change their policy and to charge the fee to both residential and nonresidential customers. A claim had been made by a local church and the board reacted to it. We have heard informally that the way they had assessed the fee was illegal although no one, including the Times, has explained why.
The board held a meeting to discuss the church’s claim and went into executive session. When they came out they voted to change their billing policy. The Times tells us that the vote was illegal because the item was not properly posted on the board’s agenda.
We received an email Friday of last week that contained this:
I’ve been told that water bills to residents received today already have the new franchise fee on the bill. Sounds like they made the decision before they too[k] action Wednesday night. Shady does not go far enough.
Did management of the water utility take action to change the billing policy even before the board voted?
If the vote was a violation of the Texas open meetings act someone could file suit and a judge could order the vote and consequent actions to be void.
There are two candidates for the west side council seat that could have an interest in this. One is a former member of the utility board. The other is a practicing attorney. Might we see one or both of them step up to the plate and file the lawsuit?
The city attorney should have told council that passing the fee on to only the nonresidential customers would be illegal.
This mess was caused by city council. They should straighten it out.
We deserve better
Brutus
9 Comments | 
City government, El Paso Times, State Government | 
Permalink
Posted by Brutus
Hitting the wall
April 2, 2015It looks like some things are going to have to change. The Times reported yesterday that next year’s city budget could grow by $24.2 million unless some expenses are dropped.
Property tax near maximum
The city raised about $149 million in property taxes last year. The tax rate, which includes operations as well as debt service, was at $.6997 per hundred. Council could raise the tax rate but if they raise the operations portion more than 8% we can ask for a rollback election. An 8% increase would bring us to $.7557 per hundred and provide an additional $11 million.
We would still be $13 million short. If council decided to raise the tax rate to the maximum that Texas will allow we would be at $.80 per hundred. That would provide $170 million if the voters did not vote it down in a rollback election. Even the maximum would only raise $21 million, leaving them $3.2 million short.
More revenue?
We might see an increase in fees like the franchise fee that the city imposed on the water utility this year. We can expect to see members of council offering up all sorts of ways to soak the taxpayers. Trash collection rates and bridge rates could go up. The might even try to impose a speaker’s fee if you wish to speak before city council.
Less expense?
It is possible that we might see layoffs but most of us doubt that would happen. We might see cutbacks in spending like the 5% of capital spending that we allocate to public art. Services might be cut.
They might even vote to stop the quality of life projects. We voted to build the facilities but the city will have to come up with even more money to operate and maintain them.
Whatever happens, this is not going to be pretty.
It looks like the real “crazies” were the ones on council.
We deserve better
Brutus
7 Comments | City government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
Stacking the deck
March 26, 2015Our city council has directed our city attorney to draft an ordinance that would require the concurrence of three city council members in order for one of them to place an item on the city council agenda.
Our employee (the city manager) would evidently be free to place as many items on the agenda as she/he wishes.
This is quite simply a naked power grab.
We don’t know whether this idea is being promoted by the moneyed people who influence council or if city staff wants to further subjugate their masters.
We do know that two of the candidates for the district one seat are outspoken and not bashful about speaking out strongly against things that they disagree with. Is this proposed ordinance a way to limit the potential disruption that one of these candidates might bring to the plan that is directing the city?
One of the city council members pointed out that the proposed ordinance could cause violation of the Texas open meetings laws. The law specifically prohibits serial meetings between council members where city business is discussed. Requiring three council members to place an item on the agenda will require at least three of them to have discussed an item out of public view. If a council member wanted to put an item on an agenda she/he would have to reach out to other council members. If one of those members said no then it would be reasonable to expect the council member to try someone else. That could bring us to four members who had discussed the item, one shy of a law violating quorum.
The ordinance is a very bad idea.
We deserve better
Brutus
18 Comments | City government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
School ratings
March 19, 2015There were some comments the other day about charter schools not hiring certified teachers and paying those that they do hire less money than tax supported school districts do.
I decided to look into the relative performance of a local charter school compared to schools across the state and in our city.
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) publishes an “Accountability Summary” for each school and school district. They rate each in four areas, 1) student achievement, 2) student progress, 3) closing performance gaps, and 4) postsecondary readiness.
Student progress and closing performance gaps are important but they are not measures of final results.
The report for all schools in the state shows:
Student achievement statewide was rated at 77 and statewide postsecondary readiness was at 69.
The El Paso Independent School District and the Ysleta Independent School District rated pretty much the way the rest of the state did.
Achievement: State 77, EPISD 77, YISD 79
Postsecondary readiness: State 69, EPISD 72, YISD 66
The Burnham Wood Charter School District suffered some disparaging remarks on the blog so I looked into their rating.
The TEA rated them at 87 in student achievement and 79 in postsecondary readiness.
We don’t know about the salaries they pay their teachers. As for teacher certification the following was on the TEA web site:
To fulfill the No Child Left Behind federal requirement to be highly qualified, charter school teachers must demonstrate content mastery in their assignment. Charter school teachers must demonstrate competency in the same manner as teachers in public schools.
Brutus
3 Comments | El Paso Independent School District, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
elpasospeak 
You must be logged in to post a comment.