Heal thyself

April 17, 2013

The El Paso County Hospital District, newly known as University Medical Center of El Paso, recently asked the county commissioner’s court to approve the sale of $162 million dollars of certificates of obligation without voter approval.

The court approved $152 million.  The hospital district CEO made a video presentation that you can view here if you have the time.

Toward the end of the presentation the CEO projects future operating results starting with 2013 and going out to 2016.  His presentation predicts an average $5 million dollar per year net earnings, leading some of us to believe that the hospital will be operating profitably.  The district predicts income rising from 2012 to 2013 from $376.4 million (actual) to $476 million (predicted).  Ignoring the nice round $100 million increase (I suppose from the coming online of the children’s hospital), managing growing income by a number this large will be very hard to do.  Look for problems to occur that will drive up expenses.

The last financial statements that the district has published on it’s web  site are for 2012.  These show a $17.8 million operating loss for 2012.  That is after the taxpayers give them $71.6 million.  Part of the purpose of the district is for the taxpayers to fund medical care for those in the county that cannot afford it.  That seems reasonable to me.  The fact is however that without the taxpayer money the hospital district would have operated at a $89.4 million loss.

The district came to the commissioner’s court and wanted $162 million dollars for outpatient clinics according to the initial impression one would get reading the county web site.  Actually $29.3 million of the $162 was for renovation of the third, fifth, sixth, and seventh floors of the existing hospital.

Slow down

The district took a 28.2 million dollar charge for depreciation of it’s current facilities in 2012.  Why do they need bond money? The answer is that they are running so deeply in the red that they cannot afford to update their facilities.  If I am not mistaken the old building only had 7 floors.  Now it looks like we will be renovating four of them.  If the district has failed to keep its facilities up to date, then they have been losing even more money than they have told us about.

As part of the CEO’s presentation he tells us that they will save $17 million a year in emergency room costs by opening the clinics.  Muckraker asked in Our two cents why with that kind of savings they needed bond money at all.

I think that the CEO is doing a very good job.  Aside from the political questions regarding using taxpayer money to compete with private physicians, my main concern here is how fast we are moving.  The $120 million children’s hospital is just starting up.  They have a lot of expense to manage here.

Many in the community think that the children’s hospital will cost us a lot of money.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty

Cato

Leave a Comment » | County Government | Permalink
Posted by Cato

Proposition 7, waiting for input

April 16, 2013

Proposition 7.

SHALL SECTIONS 6.1-11, 6.2-2, 6.4, 6.6, 6.10-4, 6.10-5, 6.13-2, 6.13-3, 6.13-4, 6.13-11 A AND 6.14 OF THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED, RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT, DISCIPLINE AND TERMINATION OF EMPLOYEES, AND THE TERMS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT: TO PROVIDE THAT ALL EXECUTIVE LEVEL EMPLOYEES AND SHORT-TERM GRANT FUNDED EMPLOYEES SHALL BE IN THE UNCLASSIFIED SERVICE; TO PROVIDE THAT EMPLOYEES MAY BE HIRED AS REGULAR FULL OR PART-TIME, PROVISIONAL, TEMPORARY, OR CONTRACT EMPLOYEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY POLICIES; TO REQUIRE THE CITY COUNCIL TO ANNUALLY PROVIDE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION PLANS FOR EMPLOYEES AND ESTABLISH MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE PLANS; TO PROVIDE FOR NON-DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND PROVISION OF BENEFITS; TO REVISE THE LIST OF CAUSES FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION OF EMPLOYEES; TO CHANGE THE TERM PERMANENT EMPLOYEE TO REGULAR EMPLOYEE IN ALL PLACES WHERE THE TERM APPEARS; AND TO RE-TITLE SECTIONS AS NECESSARY?

I don’t know.

I will wait to see if the employees or the civil service commission have anything to say about this.  Absent their criticism or yours, I will think this is ok.  The city certainly is not telling us what this would do.

We deserve better

Brutus

2 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

No one will notice

April 16, 2013

This article in The El Paso Times failed to tell us what is really happening.

The reporter tells us that the bond rating organization named Fitch Ratings gave an A plus rating to the $51.4 million of city bonds being issued to finance the ball park.

You will remember that the city approved “a contract of about $40 million for the construction manager at-risk, the general contractor that will subcontract and oversee all the trade companies that will work on the Triple-A minor league baseball stadium. The remaining $10 million of the ballpark’s cost is for architects, consultants and other work to be performed before the ballpark is built” according to the Times.

40 + 10 = 51.4

What? The Times failed to explain the increase from the $50 million the city keeps claiming the ball park will cost.

The city formed the City of El Paso Downtown Development Corporation to organize the financial matters relating to the ball park. Earlier reporting in the Times quoted the chief financial officer of the city as saying “forming the corporation — a recommendation from the Texas Attorney General’s office, which reviews and approves bond issues — allows it to issue bonds without having to have a coverage ratio or a debt reserve fund, which in turn allows it to borrow at lower interest rates than the city could.”

Does the corporation have the authority to issue more than the $50 million we voted on? Here is the ballot language that the voters passed:

VENUE PROJECT AND HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX PROPOSITION

“AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS, TO DESIGNATE THE MINOR LEAGUE BASEBALL STADIUM PROJECT AS A SPORTS AND COMMUNITY VENUE PROJECT WITHIN THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH
APPLICABLE LAW AND TO IMPOSE A TAX ON THE OCCUPANCY OF A ROOM IN A HOTEL LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY, AT THE MAXIMUM RATE OF TWO PERCENT (2%) OF THE PRICE PAID FOR SUCH ROOM, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FINANCING SUCH VENUE PROJECT.”

What’s missing?

A dollar limit for starters. We agreed to raise the tax by 2%. We did not limit the amount of money that can be spent on the ball park. We did not vote to spend a certain amount. We voted to raise a tax. How much council spends is up to them.

A + is a two step downgrade.

Municipal bond ratings go from AAA (the best) down to AA+, AA, AA-, A+. A, and even lower.

Fitch rates El Paso municipal bonds as AA. These special ball park bonds have been rated two steps lower (riskier). A lower rating means a higher (more expensive) interest rate. Our chief financial officer told us that the new development corporation would allow us to borrow at lower interest rates than the city.

That does not look like it is true.

It does not look like the Times is watching out for our interests either.

Muckraker

Leave a Comment » | Ball park, City government, El Paso Times | Permalink
Posted by Muckraker

Proposition 6, civil

April 15, 2013

SHALL SECTIONS 6.1-1, 6.1-2, 6.1-3, 6.1-4, 6.1-6 D, AND 6.13-8 OF THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED, RELATING TO THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION: TO STATE THE PURPOSE OF THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM; TO PROVIDE FOR THE SPECIFIC DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION; TO ESTABLISH UNIFORM STARTING DATES FOR THE TERMS OF OFFICE FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION; TO PROHIBIT THE APPOINTMENT OF A PERSON CLOSELY RELATED TO A CITY EMPLOYEE TO THE COMMISSION; TO SPECIFY THE TIME FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE ACTION ON PROPOSED RULES; AND TO PROVIDE WHEN THE COMMISSION MAY REDUCE DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE AND RE-HEAR A DISCIPLINARY APPEAL?

That is proposition 6.

I have not heard anything negative about this from the civil service commission.

My assumption is that the commission would be howling if they were not happy with this.

My concern is that once again specific language has not been shown to us.

Please study this and vote in May.

We deserve better

Brutus

Leave a Comment » | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

The week of April 14, 2013

April 15, 2013

Brutus started a series of individual posts about each of the nine proposed city charter amendments.

In Not in my backyard, or maybe yes Brutus wrote about the 1,000 acres of existing development that city council wants to rezone without a public vote.  Then in Proposition 5, fox in the hen house he pointed out that the city auditor would report to the city manager if proposition 5 passes.  He wondered if the authors were nuts.  These were posted on Sunday, the day city hall was demolished.

Saturday Brutus posted Proposition 4, the blank check.  It would give the mayor and city council automatic salary adjustments and we would no longer get to decide how much they get paid.  I posted Still uncertain.  The city has a document on the web site that pretends to explain the proposed changes to the city charter, but of course does not.

Friday Brutus wrote Proposition 3, have one for the smart code.  A reader suspects that it may have to do with the ball park.  In Say you did it, not me he pointed out how a city representative and the city manager appear to have conspired to lie to city council and the public.

Proposition 2 or the shady deal enabling act came out on Thursday.  Brutus had major problems with this proposition.  Among other things it would allow council to lease out city property with a simple resolution instead of by ordinance making it simpler for a future council to slip things by the public.  I wondered in Hauling what inconveniences would be caused by the 1,000 truckloads soon to be coming out of the old city hall site.  A reader evidently thought that asking a question was tantamount to making an accusation.

Brutus wrote Proposition 1, authorizing nothing Wednesday.  He pointed out that moving city elections to November would make getting citizen petitions under the city charter much more difficult, thus making it harder to fight city hall.  I offered Congratulations El Paso Times.

Tuesday saw Seeing into their hearts, an example of disdain for the public from a city representative and the city manager.  Some readers took Brutus to task for this post, while some others defended him.  Then I wondered in Got the lead out? if there is going to be an environmental problem with the rubble from city hall.

New Medical Clinics was posted by M. T. Cicero Monday.  He suggested ways to avoid building new clinics by using the ones we already have more wisely.  I criticized the county plan to spend $162 million in Our two cents.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Muckraker

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »