Behind his back?

September 25, 2013

The letter from the sports group to the mayor about the most recent ball park cost overrun includes this statement:

“As a result, the City and MountainStar began discussing additional ways to cover these anticipated additional costs which could be as much as $10 Million.”

On July 2, 2013 city council considered and passed  this agenda item:

Discussion and action regarding a Resolution modifying the authority granted to the City Manager in connection with the awarding of Solicitation No. 2013-109R to Jordan Hunt, a Texas Joint Venture for the construction of the ballpark and requiring the exercise of all such authority be made in consultation with the Mayor of the City of El Paso.

The mayor is supposed to be part of any negotiations.  Has he been?

How long has this been going on behind our backs?

We deserve better

Brutus


Tough job

September 24, 2013

I wrote this before the news conference last night.  To me the thoughts are still relevant.  The addition that I would make is to thank the mayor.  Having a strong leader as mayor makes a difference.

I wouldn’t want to be in the mayor’s shoes relative to the latest ball park cost overrun.

Any concession that he makes in a contract modification will be seen by many of the citizens as a sell out.

We were sold a bill of goods by city staff.

Then city staff came to us with a $14 million cost overrun.  Some city council members feigned outrage.  “No more” they said.

Then city staff bungled the bond sale and cost us $17 million in extra interest.  Council went along with it.

Now they need another $10 million.  The sports group has offered to repay it after the stadium is built.  The sports group wants some contract changes.

Is their $10 million dollar offer only good after the stadium is built because there is fear that there will be even more cost increases?  Otherwise, why not pay it now?

Unfortunately these people have lost our trust.  Even if what the city is considering makes sense, we do not have a reason to believe anyone is acting with our best interest at heart.

I think that the mayor’s best chance here is to act in a strong and open manner.

Whatever he does needs to be well publicized with nothing hidden.

We deserve better

Brutus


Fasten your seatbelts

September 23, 2013

Unfortunately we have  just learned that they want another $10 million for the ball park.

We started at “not to exceed” $50 million.  There was even a clause in the contract that gave the construction manager part of the savings if the project came in under $50 million.  Nice deception there.

The city increased that amount to $64 million a few months later.  Some members of city council threw fits and made threats about firing people if the project was not controlled.

The city handled the bond sales poorly and ended up costing us an additional $17 million in financing costs that are not included in the numbers above.  Council demurred.

Now the sports group says it will take another $10 million, hopefully  to finish the project.  They say they will need a few other things too, like a contractual commitment to use quality of life bond money to build things that they feel are necessary around the park.

The sports group says that they are willing to repay the city the $10 million but they will need:

Any money they pay will have to be allocated to the portions of the stadium that provide the best tax advantage to the sports group.

The right “to modify the Ballpark Schedule, Project Plans and Ballpark Budget”.  In other words, control of the project.  That might actually be a good thing.

Clarify “that certain ancillary City improvements that complement the Ballpark are being paid for with City funding sources other than the Ballpark financing”.  The city’s plan has been to spend quality of life bond money to make the neighborhood better facilitate the ball park.  The city also has been spending money on improving the utilities.  Up until now those costs have been pretty much hidden.  Now the sports group wants a commitment.

The right to close Missouri street during any event that they have at the ball park.

The city will need to “exchange the City’s right to use a Ballpark suite with an equivalent number of tickets that include a reasonable combination of Ballpark party suites and other preferred seating…”  We did not know until now that the city negotiated the right to use a suite at the ball park into the original agreement.  I don’t expect  an invitation as I suspect that the suite will be used for the privileged overseers of the city.

Fasten your seat belts

More bad news will be coming in the next few months.  We still don’t know:

What the design will look like

The dimensions of the field

When it will be finished

How much more it will cost to complete it

How much money will be spent on projects near the stadium

Who knew what/when about this mess

What action bond holders may take since they were not told the truth.  Lying to the citizens does not bring the same legal problems as lying to the bond buyers.

Avoidable

These cost over-runs are avoidable.  We could have had a $50 million stadium.  The architects were hired to design a stadium that could be built for $50 million dollars.  The extra $24 million is for things that the city and the sports group think will make the stadium better.  Better in this case means increase their revenue stream.

We deserve better

Brutus


Principles or business, which will win?

September 22, 2013

My imagination is not capable of dreaming up these things.

This post was about some at the city trying to disqualify a bidder because even though they were low bid, their mobilization cost was too high.  The fact that the contractor is a friend of the city manager did not enter into the discussion at city council.  As I recall the city manager stayed out of the discussion.  Ultimately the old city council voted to give the contract to the low bidder and thus ignored the mobilization issue.

The backup material for this first round indicated that “On January 22, 2013 a letter was sent to Karlshruher informing them of the Engineering and Construction Management Department’s recommendation to City Council.  The letter also, informed Karlshruher, Inc that the item was posting to the City Council meeting of January 29, 2013, should they wish to appear before City Council.”

We had a bidder who was low, but was going to be disqualified because of a problem with one line item, getting a friendly letter from the city telling them that they may want to appear before city council and object.  Ultimately the bidder did appear before city council and was awarded the bid.

The result was good.  The low bidder got the job.

Round two

The September 24, 2013 city council agenda has another bid award item on it.  The same two bidders are contending for a different piece of business.  This time the shoe is on the other foot.

The low bidder this time is the firm that lost the first round.  City staff wants to disqualify them because their mobilization costs are too high.

The backup material makes no mention of sending a letter to them telling that they may want to appear before city council like their competitor received last time.

Stay tuned

This one will be interesting to watch.

Will the Karlshruher firm bow out knowing that their bid is higher, and that the technicality setting them up to get this business is one that they fought against and called wrong last time?  Is fair for the goose fair for the gander?

Will the low bidder appear before council and argue that low is low, regardless of an individual line item?

Will the new city council be made aware of the complete situation?  Will they give the business to the low bidder?  Two of the city manager’s supporters are not on council this time.

City staff has been consistent here in recommending that a bidder with mobilization costs that are over 5% of the bid should be disqualified.

Have they been consistent in warning the low bidder about the problem?  We know they did the first time.  Did they the second time?

Will the city manager’s friend get the business again?

We deserve better

Brutus


Disconnected

September 21, 2013

I think I am beginning to get an understanding of the Times’ editorial policy.

Friday’s  front page had an article about how the economy in El Paso is slowing down.

Saturday’s  editorial was lauding the opening of the Fountains at Farah and said  “Because the economy is on the rebound, open space at retail outlets, including Fountains at Farah, should begin to fill up, as they did previously at the other malls in town.”

Subscription

I don’t think they read their own newspaper.

Maybe we should chip in and buy them a subscription.

Muckracker