elpasospeak

I’ve been thinking about the move of city hall.

The old city hall has been torn down and city staff has moved into new offices.  City functions are up and running.  The public is being served.

Then why?

Why then are we remodeling two additional buildings for city use?  According to the central appraisal district the one at 801 Texas is about 62,400 square feet while the one at 218 N Campbell (the Luther building) is about 64,000 square feet.  Between the two of them the city has told us about $20.4 million in remodeling costs.

If city functions are running well why do we need these buildings?  Are some departments crippled?  Has the rush to get the ball park built caused some city functions to be sacrificed?

Both of these buildings are old, almost one hundred years old.  Their construction style required giant concrete mushroom pillars in the middle of each supporting floor.  These pillars occupy a lot of space and must be built around.  In short, they restrict the floor designs that can be used.  We seem to be paying over $200 per square foot to remodel the Luther building.  Would a new building have been cheaper and better?

Why do we need these buildings?  Can’t we leave the city departments where they are?  Or are things not running well?  Has the haste to tear down city hall caused service to the public to suffer?

We deserve better

Brutus

The city manager’s proposed 2014 budget presentation lets us know that in 2013 she transferred the chief financial officer (CFO) to work directly for the city manager.

Previously the CFO worked for the deputy city manager in charge of finance and management support services.  The presentation tells us the deputy city manager position will be eliminated at the end of this budget year.

After all finance and management can be handled directly by the city manager and her lock-step CFO.  That way any chance of independent review will conveniently be eliminated.  Things can be a lot simpler when you don’t have to follow the rules.  Remember that most of the poorly conceived or down right phony financial presentations relating to the ball park and city hall move have come from either the city manager or the CFO.

Word on the street is that the deputy city manager in question is being eased out (could it be that he disagreed with the financial presentations?)  and will magically reappear as some sort of city consultant.

It looks to me like the CFO is being positioned as a possible replacement for the city manager.  Watch out.

We deserve better

Brutus

The city manager’s proposed 2014 budget includes an increase of $5.9 million to start paying for certificates of obligation that city council issued without asking the voters in 2012 and 2013.

That’s not too bad until you look at the total cost.  If they are 25 year bonds the total cost will be over $147 million.

Why can’t we save up some money for a couple of years and then pay cash for a new project?  We could then save some more, take any financial benefits from the prior project, and then build a second project.  At 3.5% interest over 30 years this approach would save us more than 60%.

Bridges used as barriers

The budget proposes an $816,854 increase in bridge revenues.  Bridge revenue has been running about $17 million per year.  In 2012 the city transferred $10.5 million of that to the general fund evidently because the bridge operations do not need it.   Of the $816,854 the budget proposes that $724,644 be added to the $10.5 million making the profit number over $11.2 million.

Between the ball park, quality of life bonds, city hall relocation, and other projects city council is spending a lot of money downtown.  Now we see that the city is using high crossing fees to supplement the general fund.

Economists talk about elasticity when they speak of rates.  The theory is that as something costs more, fewer people buy it.  Do we want people to come downtown?  Isn’t the downtown revitalization dependent upon more people frequenting downtown?  Would lowering the crossing fees bring more people downtown?  Or is it that we don’t want those people?

We deserve better

Brutus

The city manager is scheduled to present her proposed 2014 city budget to city council today (July 16, 2013).

It will take a few posts to cover just the obvious issues.

Let’s start with some of her proposed priorities:

Complete AAA ballpark on time and within budget.   What budget? We were told that the ball park would cost $50 million.  Now the cost estimate is up to $64 million.  A recent El Paso Times article quoted the city engineer  “In the next 30 days, the final cost and amenities of the ballpark are expected to be set as the majority of its construction bids should be received and start being awarded …”

Finalize relocation of city departments to permanent spaces.  According to the home page of the city web site “The City Hall relocation is complete”.  Oh, they have a couple of buildings yet to remodel.  And some city departments are scattered over town in parks and recreation facilities and rented office space.  This says nothing of her hope to create a new government complex in entirely different buildings after this move is finished and the dust settles.

Enter into Public Private Partnership with Customs and Border Protection to alleviate bridge wait times.  Public Private?  What part of this would be private?  Give us a break.  Tell the truth once in a while.

Explore concession agreement with CRRMA (or some alternative) for more effective oversight of International Bridges.  This one is huge and will be covered in a later post.  In the mean time is she saying that oversight of the bridges is deficient now?  Then get to work and fix it.

Stay tuned.

We deserve better

Brutus