More revenue streams needed for the ball park

March 22, 2014

The March 25, 2014 city council agenda has 3 items on it relating to parking around our new ball park.

Last minute

True to prior form these items are being raised at the last minute.  That way city council does not have the time to consider other options.  The citizens will just have to watch city council do the bidding of city staff.

Item 8.2 on the regular agenda is a proposed ordinance that would “establish a process for the creation of Downtown Parking Districts” that would essentially allow a city representative to propose a new district or a geographic change to an existing district.  That seems logical to me, at least it will require the elected officials to vote on it.

The ordinance would also expand an existing district to include “an area in the vicinity of the El Paso Ballpark and  the Old San Francisco District”.

Parking Meters

City staff wants to install parking meters in the areas that ball park patrons would probably want to park in.  This, of course, is another revenue grab.  The proposed ordinance would provide for residents of the area to receive permits that would allow them to park in the metered spaces without paying the fee.  That’s nice.

Hidden cost

The item is submitted for the agenda with the required “Agenda Item Department Head’s Summary Form”.  The form is designed to convey essential information to city council including the amount and source of funding.

In this case the form indicates “N/A” in the section that would tell council members how much money will be spent.

I hope to publish a post tomorrow about the other two items.

We deserve better

Brutus

5 Comments | Ball park, City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Thieves

March 21, 2014

The folks over at Mock El Paso Times published a link to this email the other day.

code

Property theft

The email chain shows a city representative openly colluding with the city manager to use code enforcement to pressure a property owner into donating the property to the city.

“Code enforcement is working!  Apparently a run-down piece of property that would be great for the MCA and Texas Tech is being donated by the owner because the city has cited him for several violations in recent months.  Keep up the great work.  Hopefully we can get more of these dilapidated properties into good hands …”

The city representative goes on to mention another property she has her eye on.  She tells the city manager about being rebuffed by the owner and asks the city manager if code enforcement “has been out there”.

The city manager responds “…I don’t want to show up right away or he will complain we are harassing him to get his building.  I’ll send them out a little later.”

Selective enforcement

Council passed a new ordinance that makes economic conditions harder for building owners that own empty or even partially empty buildings.

Now we see why.

If the building needs work that does not get done, assess a fine.  Condemn the building.  Have it torn down.

Don’t steal it.

We deserve better

Brutus

12 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Airport golf

March 20, 2014

Our city airport owns two golf courses.

The first, Lone Star, is on the south side of Montana on airport owned land.  The second one, Butterfield Trail, is also on airport land at the east end of the airport.

How are they doing financially?

The most recent financial report the airport has on it’s web site is for the year  ended August 31, 2010.  We should be able to see more recent years but for some reason they have chosen not to show them to us.

The report shows that for Lone Star income was $187,664 and expenses were $6,265.  It looks like the airport has hired a contractor to operate the golf course and the financial statements are only showing the portion of the income  and expense that the airport actually sees.  We seem to have made a $181,399 profit.

The other golf course is a different story.  I did not find a direct reference to Butterfield Trail on the financial statements, but it appears that they are reporting it as Cottonwood Development.  The financials show $1,631,259 in income for Cottonwood Development Operations and $2,839,727 in expenses for the same entity.  That means that we are losing over $1.2 million each year.

As I recall the thinking behind building Butterfield Trail was that having a really nice golf course would make it easier for us to attract a resort hotel to the city.  That has not happened.  We are left with a facility that generates less than 60% of it’s cost of operations.  It looks like the plan did not work.

We deserve better

Brutus

9 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

What’s important

March 19, 2014

With the construction of our new ball park supposedly on schedule for an April 28, 2014 opening, we might want to look at how the city is doing with it’s other construction projects.

This graphic was taken directly from the city’s web site the other day.

lutherschedule

Let’s see.  Fall has come and gone.  Winter will be over in a few days.  March 20 is the start of spring this year.

The city has not moved into the Luther/Mulligan building yet.  As for the development center building, the city is now telling us that they will be able to move in sometime in April.  Evidently it is harder to build some things on time than others.

We deserve better

Brutus

3 Comments | Ball park, City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Painted dunes golf course

March 18, 2014

Some of you are aware that our water utility owns and operates a golf course in northeast El Paso.

I can’t see how it makes sense for the water utility to be in the golf business with our money.

How is the golf course doing financially?  Are they losing money and thus making us pay higher water fees to subsidize it?  Are they making a profit and should that money be used to contribute to the city general fund?

According to the water utility’s 2012 annual financial report:

During the year ended February 28, 2006, EPWU acquired a municipal golf course and has contracted
a managing agent to operate the facility. The assets, liabilities, and results of operations are included
in these financial statements as part of the Water and Wastewater Utility.

No way to know

The water utility has chosen to combine the golf course numbers with their water and wastewater operations.  We cannot see the detail.  It looks like something is being hidden here.

We deserve better

Brutus

5 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »