Exceeding the others again

September 4, 2013

El Paso’s county commissioners just added another $10 to the annual cost of registering a vehicle in El Paso county.

Highest again

The fee in 2014 will be $20, the highest in the state.  You can look at this chart to see rates by county in 2013.

FeeChart_1C (2)

We can thank our state senator and our local state representative who serves on the transportation committee for this.  They worked to amend house bill 1198 to add El Paso county to the prior list of Cameron, Hidalgo and Webb counties.  These lucky four counties are the only ones that can charge their citizens the extra $10 under this bill.

Wrong Again

One of the county commissioners claims that this is a benefit to property owners since some people do not pay property tax.  The truth is that if you pay rent your landlord must pay property tax.  That tax is passed on to you as part of your rent payment.

The increase in the fee is a tax increase.  The county pays for transportation projects now.  The over $30 million that the fee increase is expected to raise in the next five years would have otherwise come out of the regular budget.

Not accountable

To make matters even worse, the county intends to turn the money over to the Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority.  Remember that in another power grab there are plans to turn control of our international bridges to this group.

This group is composed of appointed citizens.  They are not accountable to the voters.  Local politicians have found another way to take control of how our money is spent away from the voters and transfer it to a committee that cannot be held accountable by the voters.

According to the city’s web site the duties of the the group are:  “…to directly benefit the State of Texas, The City of El Paso, and the traveling public through the improvement of the state’s transportation systems in and around the City of El Paso”.

That mission statement deserves another post at a later time.

We deserve better

Brutus

1 Comment | City government, County Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

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

2 Comments | Ball park, City government, County Government, El Paso Independent School District, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Jail for the birds

August 28, 2013

Now the county has begun discussions about building a new jail facility to replace the one downtown.

According to newspaper reports the downtown jail costs about 26 dollars a day more to run per bed than the jail annex in far east El Paso.

Cost estimates for a new jail are not available yet.  Hopefully no one will ask the city chief financial officer.

If a new jail is built, what will happen to the old one?

Will they downsize it and open a few floors for other purposes?  There might be some advantages to creating cells for our local officials who end up getting sentenced to jail.  Maybe we could house them in the vacated sections so that they can serve their time while still holding office hours.

My guess is that the old jail will have to be torn down — after all it cannot possibly be made usable as anything other than a jail, we will be told.

Remember that after the public calms down about the ballpark and the wasteful move of city hall we will have to face the fact that city officials have told us that their plan is to move city functions to temporary facilities while plans are drawn up for a new municipal complex closer to the “government corridor”.

Yes, the plan is to tear down the old city hall first.  We all know that they have done that already.  Then they will refurbish a few old buildings downtown as temporary quarters for city functions.  They are doing that now.

After the dust has settled they plan to try to build yet another city hall closer to the county and feral  buildings downtown.  After all it is more efficient to have everyone in the same building.

What about the buildings that we are remodeling?  Those will be sold to developers who will then profit from our remodeling.  I wonder who in town has the money to buy those buildings?

Where oh where?

Don’t be surprised to find that the land under the current county jail turns out to be the site they propose for the new city complex.

We deserve better

Brutus

2 Comments | Ball park, City government, County Government, Federal Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

A government agency with some common sense

August 23, 2013

Word came out that the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDot)  is not going to allocate $1.6 million in federal funding to the bicycle-sharing program that the Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority (CRRMA) has been promoting.

If nothing else this warns us to watch the CRRMA closely.  This is the group that the city is talking about turning over control of the international bridges to.  Evidently TXDoT can see the impracticality of CRRMA plans while city council cannot.  We need to watch what happens to the over 11 million dollars of profit that the city currently makes on the bridges and transfers to the general fund.  CRRMA may have grandiose plans for what to do here in El Paso, but evidently the State of Texas does not agree with them.

A recent article in the El Paso Times quotes a member of a group promoting bicycling in El Paso as saying:

“This was a great opportunity for the community of El Paso.  Austin is getting a program.  Fort Worth is barely getting it set up.  What is so different with those cities that they get one and we don’t?”

Newton

Without starting into the argument about the viability of downtown, or one about the people who frequent downtown, or relative lifestyles among the cities being compared, let’s start with gravity.

El Paso is built at the base of the Rocky Mountains.  We have hills, actually steep streets.  Pedaling a bicycle up a steep street is hard.  Riding one down a steep street is dangerous.

The article goes on to point out “The hope, for example, is that people who need to get from UTEP or the Downtown library to the El Paso County Courthouse will use a bike instead of their car…”

I suggest that anyone who is not familiar with the terrain between UTEP and the courthouse take an air-conditioned car ride between the two.  If the trip starts at UTEP the bicycle rider will have a downhill ride down Mesa.  Oregon would probably be safer.  Maybe the city could create run away bicycle traps to help save the people who lose control.

The trip back up the hill would be slower.  Think of pedaling up Mesa at 2 in the afternoon sometime next week.  It would be hot.  Then again it would probably be good for the hospitals as the riders suffered heart attacks.

Really nice bikes

The plan is that the bicycles will cost between one and two thousand dollars each.  These aren’t the kind of bicycles that the average citizen buys at the store, these are government bikes.  The person who checks one out will have to provide a credit card.  If the bicycle is not returned the credit card will be charged for the cost of the bike.  That probably means that people will not just leave the bikes outside the place they need to go to.

They will have to get the the kiosk to rent the bike.  Then they will take their ride.  Assuming they reach their destination alive they will probably elect to return the bicycle to another kiosk.  Then they will have to somehow get to their final destination.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

We deserve better

Brutus

5 Comments | City government, County Government, El Paso Times, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Robbing Peter is robbery

August 21, 2013

Recent developments in the whole tawdry mess that we call the El Paso baseball stadium have exposed another lie that the voters have been told over and over.

We have been told that the ball park will be paid for with hotel occupancy taxes and revenues generated by the operation of the stadium.

Texas state law specifically forbids the city to use property taxes to pay for the stadium because of the way the election was held.

Now because of the cost over-runs, inaccurate planning, poor execution, and maybe lying, the chief financial officer of the city  has just admitted that they will have to dip into general revenue funds to “augment” the stadium project financing.

How can that not mean using property taxes?  We have a budget shortfall this year.  The city manager is proposing an increase in property taxes for next year.

If we don’t have enough money to run this city now and we have to take money out of the general revenue funds for the stadium, how can that not effect property taxes?

Hiding the pea

Saying that they will not be using property tax money is simply a play on words.  Anyone with a household budget knows this.

The city could however:

Increase revenue by raising fees like traffic tickets, permits, service fees and the like.

Cut services so that the money can be spent instead on the ball park.

Do a better job of collecting the fees that they already impose.

Can they use general fund money?

Admittedly I am not a lawyer.  My reading of the Texas law that allowed the creation of the sports venue project is that it requires the voters to authorize specific sources of funds to fund the project.

General revenue sources were not included in that ballot initiative.   Chapter 334.0415 of the Texas Local Government Code appears to give the city the right to use other funds under certain circumstances.  It would appear that the city will do this.

I also think that what we will ultimately see is that the city will carve out parts of the stadium and declare them to be non-ballpark projects.

We have already seen this with the water and sewer changes that are necessary for the stadium.  They are not part of the stadium budget, but instead are being paid  for by the water users in the city.

The south entrance to the stadium ($500,000) is being funded out of the quality of life bonds.

I believe that the city is paying $800,000 for art in the stadium with funding  outside of the stadium funding.

The city staff tried to take $3,000,000 allocated to downtown street projects and wrap it into the stadium construction contract.  Council declined.  City staff decided to spend the money on projects around the stadium anyway.  They will administer it separately.

Don’t be surprised if some other part of the stadium gets carved out and put into the regular city budget.

We deserve better

Brutus

11 Comments | Ball park, City government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »