Would they listen?

August 15, 2013

Driving through a neighborhood the other day I saw a city pickup truck with the cargo section  filled with the large gray  containers that we use to dispose of our trash.

The pickup stopped at a residence. Already there was another city pickup loaded with the large blue containers that we use for recycling.

Two trucks, two drivers, one customer.

Not being an expert in these matters I wonder why the city could not put some of each type of container in the back of each truck.  That way a single truck could be dispatched to each residence.  I doubt that the city responds to service requests the same day they are made.  Someone ought to be able to figure how many of each type of container to load based upon the service calls to be run on a given day.  If the city actually responds the same day the requests are made, the trucks could be loaded with containers based upon their historical usage.

What bothers me more is that evidently no one, including myself, thinks that calling the city with this simple observation would do us any good.

We don’t feel a sense of cooperation with the city, so why waste our time.

We need to change this.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Cato

1 Comment | City government | Permalink
Posted by Cato

What’s next?

August 14, 2013

Starting with an acknowledgement , I want to say to my good friend who has been telling me that the owners of the baseball franchise were tied to the ballpark construction scheme — you were right, I was wrong.

Word on the street is that the refiner bought out the construction guy.   The press release announced a new company, a combination of some of their interests.   The timing of this is horrible.

Conflict

The agreement between the city and the team owners gave the team owners input into the selection of the construction company.  I wrote in Efficient, hardworking staff how remarkable it was that city staff was able to rate four different offers to build a multi-million dollar stadium  and decide who should get the business in only one day.

Now it appears that one of the team owners is either buying the construction company or participating in some sort of merger.

This looks bad.

Circumstances

The former vice president of the construction company has had his guilty plea vacated and is currently out of federal prison preparing for new trials.  The case he plead guilty to involved alleged bribes to a former county commissioner in order to get work for the construction company.  Some still wonder how the vice president could have acted alone.

The head of the construction company has had his house for sale but has evidently decided to give it to UTEP.  Word on the street is that he has moved out of town, actually out of the country.  I have not seen confirmation of this so it may not be true.

Rumor, strictly rumor, has it that the city has not been forthcoming with either the owners of the team or the construction company relative to the costs to build the stadium.  It may be that the city knew early on that the ballpark could not be built for 50 million dollars.

The press release claims that the old construction company will maintain responsibility for projects started before August 8, 2013.  That would include the ballpark.  People who have run businesses know that their operations depend in large part upon a continuous flow of business.  Severing the new income while winding down old projects is very hard to do.  I doubt that it can be done here.  Maybe the deal includes a bailout for the old firm.

Financing for the project is still an issue.  We know that the city has had difficulty selling the bonds.  In fact, I have not been able to find them for sale anywhere.  The public does not know how much money has been raised at this point.

The city manager said in public that she would have to stop construction of the ballpark if the bonds were not sold.  How the current construction is being paid for is not known by the public  The ballot issue limited funding sources to the increase in the hotel occupancy tax and funds generated through the operation of the stadium.  There is not enough money from these two sources to fund the construction.

Is it possible?

Risking hearing a round of clucking from my friend I wonder if the refiner is bailing out the construction company.  Is the contractor getting paid by the city?  Has this turned out to be a bad deal for the contractor?  Is it possible that the refiner has done this to bail out the contractor and the city?

New dimensions

While we will have to wait to learn the real facts, one thing that is not so obvious comes to mind.  Now that one of the owners of the team now owns the successor to the construction company, any claim the team owners have against the city relative to the ballpark (lateness, cost, completeness …) will be much harder for the team owners to pursue.

We deserve better

Brutus

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

Another faulty ordinance

August 13, 2013

This week’s city council agenda includes the introduction of a proposed ordinance that would create the office of the chief financial officer (CFO) of the city.

Why?

We already have a CFO.  Why do we need an new ordinance?  My belief is that the city manager is setting up our current CFO to be in a better position to be the next city manager.  Remember that our CFO has been carrying most of the water when it comes to making  presentations to city council.  Someone was needed to mislead council.  Remember the $33 million dollar move of city hall that is now well over $70 million and the  50 million dollar ballpark?

What?

The proposed ordinance defines the responsibilities  “as designated by the City budget Resolution adopted for fiscal year 2014”.  This is typical of this administration.  The budget resolution has not been passed.  We have not even seen it.  How can the public comment, as state law allows us to, about an ordinance if we don’t know what it says?  If this ordinance passes, the city can then put whatever it wants in the resolution.

We also already have a purchasing department.  The ordinance would change it’s name to the purchasing and strategic sourcing  department.

If they want to have fancy names for poorly performing departments, let me suggest the following:

Chief Sycopant

Propaganda Minister

Director of Patronage

You might want to send in the names of the city departments that you think most qualify for these potential new names.

More nonsense

The proposed ordinance includes this wording:

The City Manager designates the Chief Financial Officer to oversee the financial and purchasing related services and responsibilities within the City as designated by the City Budget Resolution adopted for Fiscal Year 2014 and thereafter as assigned by the City Manager and as set forth in the El Paso City Charter and City Code to include those functions, powers and duties designated within state law, the City Charter and any existing ordinance belonging to the Comptroller.

Before this I did not know that any city ordinance belonged to the Comptroller.

The proposed ordinance has been approved by an assistant city attorney as well as the current chief financial officer.

Ordinances are laws.  They should be worded carefully.

We deserve better

Brutus

3 Comments | Ball park, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Breaking (broken) news

August 12, 2013

The construction company that is building the ballpark and one of the investors in the AAA baseball team have just announced that they are forming a new construction company, ultimately replacing the old company.

You can read about it here.

The press release tells us that all projects started after August 8, 2013 will be performed by the new company.

Evidently the ballpark construction will not be transferred to the new company.

Truth stranger than fiction

I cannot imagine making this accusation on my own.  The ballpark story just gets worse and worse.

Even if the companies somehow find a way for the new company to not benefit or participate in the ballpark, this simply does not look right.

We deserve better

Brutus

3 Comments | Ball park, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Priorities

August 12, 2013

This week’s city council agenda had on it the introduction of an ordinance that would change the fees that our library system charges. The backup material has two items in it that you might find to be interesting.

Contrary to what most people that I speak with think, library usage is going up, not down.  Circulation in 2011 is expected to increase by 17.4% through 2013.

El Paso spends less per capita on it’s library than  other major Texas cities:

EL PASO                                               $12.61

ARLINGTON                                          $20.59

AUSTIN                                                 $34.20

DENTON                                                $42.34

FORT WORTH                                        $25.89

HOUSTON                                              $20.23

SAN ANTONIO                                        $18.99

Aren’t we proud?

We may have to close recreation centers to house city staff and we may starve our libraries but at least we can tear down city hall and build a new one.

What is wrong with us?  How do we expect our children to stay in town or companies to move here?

We deserve better

Brutus

3 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »