Pork

August 4, 2013

The 2nd special session of the Texas state legislature has adjourned without passing the special bill to raise an additional $900 million a year for transportation.

The legislative backers of the bill suggest that the governor may want to call another special session after the 2014 primaries.

As you know, our legislature only has regular sessions every other year.

It seems that Texas now needs to spend $4 billion each year to keep up with growth.

The prior El Paso city council (the 26 percenters) just spent $4.7 million to finance a study that we were told was necessary in order to secure $90 million in state funding to create a street car line. Us 74 percenters were told in an open city council session that the money was guaranteed.

Maybe next year city council will spend $5 million on a study to determine if pigs can fly.

We deserve better

Brutus

Leave a Comment » | City government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Call for authors

August 3, 2013

The authors of this blog strive to promote civilized public discourse about issues, primarily local ones.

Many of the comments that are posted by readers of the blog help serve this purpose.  They often introduce other points of view or reinforce ones already stated.  By and large they are civil.  We appreciate them taking their time.

We try to avoid names here in an effort to keep the discussion about the issues, not the people.  Making the discussion personal takes away from the significance of the point being made.

We want to take this opportunity to invite other authors to write for this blog.  We do not need a commitment to a set publishing schedule.  You could just submit articles when you have time or when you see a need.

Send me a note at brutusep@yahoo.com if you would like to contribute.

Your thoughts will help.

We deserve better

Brutus

1 Comment | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Another trick

August 2, 2013

The latest baseball park bond resolution from city council (sitting as the Downtown Development Corporation)  authorized the sale of $60.8 million of bonds at an interest rate not to exceed 5.75%.

You might remember that this is needed to finance our $50 million ball park that now is costing north of $64 million.

This article in El Paso Inc.  showed that the ball park costs are continuing to rise and that we should expect even more.

Creative financing

If I am wrong here I trust that someone will set me straight.

City staff explained that the $60.8 million of bonds will actually generate $64 million.  The extra $3.2 million will be used for contingencies — in other words they will spend it.  Even if they don’t we will pay interest on it.

How can they get away with $64 million when they were only allowed $60.8 million?  The answer is simple and sneaky.  Staff left some room in the amount of interest they can pay.  What they will do is pay more interest than would normally be necessary for this type of municipal bond.  In return they will get a $3.2 million dollar windfall.  Don’t worry, we can pay for it over time.  In fact they changed from a 25 year term to a 30 year term.  Quite simply they are using time and high interest rates thus raising the total cost to the community without being up front about it.

The article explained:

As for the new $64-million figure, Wilson said the sale of $60.8 million in municipal revenue bonds will actually generate an additional $3 million because they will be premium bonds. Those bonds will pay a higher interest rate, and investors will be willing to pay more

The city’s chief financial officer, Carmen Arrieta Candelaria, said the use of premium bonds is common when interest rates are too low to make conventional municipal bonds less attractive.

That last sentence does sound like the kind of nonsense that comes from this group.

Even more ominous is their admission that more issues will be coming up soon that will have to be taken to council.

We deserve better

Brutus

4 Comments | City government, El Paso Inc. | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Double whammy

August 1, 2013

A few days ago one of our commenters asked one of us about the new radio system for the sheriff’s department.

You will remember that the city destroyed it’s 2008 radio system when it imploded city hall.  This article explained how the city chose to buy a new $20 million dollar radio system instead of moving the one they had.

My focus at the time was about how the rush to vacate the old city hall seemed to have made it impractical to move the multiple channel radio system one channel at a time, thus saving the equipment and our money.

Now the sheriff needs a new radio system like the city’s in order to be compatible with other agencies and to improve coverage.

The commenter asked a great question.  Could the old city system have been used by the sheriff?

We deserve better

Brutus

3 Comments | City government, County Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Scofflaws

July 31, 2013

A reader pointed out the Texas Local Government Records Act to me.

My previous posts about the email controversy have addressed the issue with the Texas Public Information Act in mind.

This post, like all of my others, is only my opinion.

I conclude that the emails in question are local government records under the Texas Local Government Records Act (the law).  If my readers want me explain my thought process, I will post subsequent articles explaining the several steps that it took for me to come to this conclusion.

What surprised me is that it looks like our former city representatives are already in violation of Texas law.

City representatives hold a public office, that of district representative.  Section 201.006 of this law requires each of them to turn over all local government records in their possession at the expiration of their term to the person who becomes their successor.  Not eventually.  There are exemptions, like a copy of a record or a personal journal, but the emails in question are correspondence.  If the district representative has an email that qualifies as a local government record that the city does not already have, it must be turned over.

Possession of a local government record (not a copy) by a private individual is a class A misdemeanor.  Class A misdemeanors are punishable by a fine up to $4,000 and/or one year in jail.

We need to ask

The new district representatives should each ask their predecessor for all local government records in the former district representative’s possession.  I would think that the criminal charge would not be appropriate if the records are turned over now.

City council also has the right to demand return of the documents and I believe it should.

We need to communicate with city council and let them know that we would like them to take these actions.

District attorney

I believe that our district attorney should investigate this situation and announce his findings to the public.  Part of his job is to prosecute violators of state laws.

I would think that 74% of the voters think the same thing.

We deserve better

Brutus

3 Comments | City government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »