8.10.2004
Dear reader, this week an important and controversial item was front and center: the development proposed by the Hunt Corporation and Resler I-10 Development Company in the beautiful Resler Arroyo. This arroyo (just off the Resler exit near I-10) is a treasure; however, it must have been the City who sold this land to developers in the first place, presumably so they could develop it, and develop it is exactly what they want to do.
Thankfully, dedicated and focused neighbors have successfully waged a war against the potential destruction of this arroyo, and although this is by no means over, this meeting was a significant step towards that end.
There are a few other issues not related to the development that are also important, and while I will try to be brief, the notes (like this week’s 6.5 hour meeting) are long.
Get you coffee, get comfy, and let’s get started.
Public Wisdom
Mr. Richard Schecter, an informed citizen who has come before Council in the past, placed the following two items on the agenda this week:
1. Discussion and action on a Motion directing Staff to develop a comprehensive plan/ordinance to preserve the natural state of all arroyos within the City limits. Staff shall make extensive use of citizen input in developing the plan/ordinance and shall review similar preservation efforts undertaken by other cities. Staff shall report back to City Council with their recommendations, together with a plan/schedule for implementation, within 180 days. [Richard Schecter]
2. Discussion and Action on a Motion to expand the open meeting and notification requirements of the Planning Commission as follows: Regardless of any wording to the contrary above, the Planning Commission shall be required to hold an open meeting/hearing on any new action proposed for a parcel/tract that was previously subject to a contested hearing. The petitioner shall be responsible for notifying all previous participants of record (of the contested action(s)) regarding the subject, date and time of the new hearing. [Richard Schecter]
It was a timely topic, and the Council Chambers were filled with folks who were ready to fight for the Resler Canyon Arroyo.
Mr. Schecter, reference item 1, explained to the Council that the City has no development policy regarding arroyos. Obviously, the time had come. Not only did Schecter recommend that the Council remedy this oversight, but he further suggested that the Council place a freeze on any development that involves arroyos.
As you can imagine, his recommendations were met with approval from the crowd.
On item two, Schecter wanted the City to expand its notification of arroyo developments to neighborhood groups. Currently, subdivision applications (which go through the City Plan Commission) do not require notification to neighborhood groups because if the subdivision applications meet state law, the City is required to grant them. That means that even if neighborhoods were to be notified of the subdivision application and rallied to try to stop the approval, they could not.
Ultimately, the Council took no action, but Representatives made promises. Cobos promised to work something out for item one within the next ninety days and Vivian Rojas promised to work on his recommendations for item two “soon” as the Chair of the Planning Department’s Legislative Review Committee.
Vacation…All I Ever Wanted
The next item to be discussed was a re-visiting of last week’s decision by Council to allow the owner of the dead-end at Pizarro Road to be vacated. The dead end is located at the north end of the Resler Arroyo Canyon and it also happens to be the location of one (of two) entrances to the Hunt Corporation’s development. The owner of that dead end, Mr. Terry Squire, admitted last week that he is planning (in part) on using his land to block Hunt from using it as an entrance to the planned development. The City Council allowed the vacation of this property.
This week, Frank Ainsa, representing the Hunt Corporation, placed the following item on the public portion of the additions to the agenda:
1. Resolution that the Ordinance adopted on August 3, 2004 (item #24C) vacating a portion of Pizarro Road adjacent to Lot 9, Block 59 and lot 13, Block 71, Coronado Hills, Unit 6, El Paso, El Paso County, Texas, required the written consent of Resler Interstate 10 Development Company, an abutting property owner, under Section 19.44.010-B of the El Paso City Code; and that City Council take all the necessary steps to enact an amending Ordinance rescinding the vacation of Pizarro Road. (Attachment) [Frank Ainsa, Jr.]
Mr. Ainsa, who argued against the Council’s decision to allow the property owner (Terry Squire) to block the entrance to the development last week, wanted Council to reconsider its action.
He argued that under the ordinance, “Before a vacation can be granted, consent from abutting the property owner must be obtained” or the City cannot vacate the property. Hunt Corporation and Resler I-10 Development Company clearly would not grant consent; to do so would mean that they would willingly make development in the arroyo much more difficult if not impossible for themselves.
Matt Watson, Assistant City Attorney, asked Council if he could please address them in executive session (presumably to give them legal advice). In fact, the item was already posted for executive session discussion:
3A. Resler Interstate 10 Development, Inc. and Hunt Building Company vs. City Plan Commission, Cause No. 2004-3269. (551.071) [City Attorney's Office, Matt Watson, (915) 541-4550]
Anthony Cobos, who has never let the law stand in his way, moved to delete the item and ignored Mr. Watson’s request.
Representative Cook made a motion to take the item into Executive Session to allow their counsel to give them advice, but voting against the motion were Representatives Cushing, Power, Rojas and Cobos. The other four (Austin, Lozano, Cook and Escobar) voted to get legal advice. Because it was a tie, Wardy had to vote and he voted against going into executive session and getting legal advice.
Mr. Squire, the owner of the vacated property, stated that – ironically – he didn’t eveb know about Ainsa’s agenda item until the day before when he read about it in the newspaper. Clearly, folks aren’t getting notified, which was exactly Mr. Schecter’s point in his own public agenda item.
Coronado Hills vs. Corporation Hunt
At that point, other speakers who had signed up to discuss the item began discussing not only Ainsa’s item, but also the following two agenda items, so they were all taken up together:
27A. Resolution approving Detailed Site Development Plan No. ZON03-00010, for Tract 16A1 and Tract 16A1A, A. F. Miller Survey No. 213, El Paso, El Paso County, Texas (East of Resler Drive and South of Mesa Street), pursuant to a special contract imposed by Ordinance No. 9198. The penalty being as provided in Chapter 20.68 of the El Paso Municipal Code. Applicant: Hunt Building Corporation and Resler Interstate 10 Development Co., Inc. / Representative: Moreno Cardenas, Inc.; 2505 Missouri Avenue, Suite 100, El Paso, TX 79903. (District 8) THIS IS AN APPEAL CASE. (Attachment) [Planning, Research and Development, Fred Lopez, (915) 541-4925]
3B. Archaeological Site within Resler Canyon Subdivision. (551.071) [City Attorney's Office, Matt Watson, (915) 541-4550]
Several folks spoke, some experts, some not, and most of them were very impressive speakers. Ms. Ursula Sherril, for example, who has a Master’s Degree in Wetland Ecology, outlined the “sweeping transformation” that would take place if the development were to happen. She gave the audience an excellent explanation of the ecosystem within arroyos, which she calls natural “communities.”
Rudy Valdez, with the City Planning Department, explained that Hunt Development Corp. and the Resler I-10 Development Company could still develop the upper part of the arroyo without Council approval; however, it was the portion of the development in the lower part of the arroyo has to go through Council.
There were, again, numerous speakers who came forward including neighborhood activists and representatives of the developer.
Lip Service, Land Swaps and Law Suits
Dan Chavira, the Project Manager for the development, said that while he sympathized with the “emotional arguments” made by the activists, the developer has “followed the rules that govern us.”
He also referenced a land-swap. If you’ve been keeping up with this issue, you’ll know that early on into this controversy, Representative Cobos stated that he would initiate a land-swap between the City and the developer so that the City could take over the arroyo and protect it from future development.
Chavira said, “Let’s not just give lip service to the residents…I would like to see some action.” He reminded Council that in the developer’s eyes, the land swap previously proposed was unfair. Apparently, the arroyo property is 100 acres (186 potential homes) and Cobos had offered the developer 30 acres (70 potential homes) in exchange. “It just doesn’t work,” said Chavira. He further informed the Council that as a result of the Council’s actions, the property in question had been devalued and the Council was giving them no other choice but to take legal action.
Representative Cook made an attempt to postpone the item so that a land swap deal could be worked out, but Cobos rejected the suggestion.
Frank Ainsa told the Council that he and his client are still “waiting for a land swap to materialize.”
Cobos, putting the responsibility of a land swap back on the developer stated that he wanted to vote the item down and then “Let the dust settle, so to say, and if they truly want to come back with a proposal…I think we can do so at that time.”
A frustrated Ainsa then told Council that his client had followed all rules created by the Council; to vote the development down would mean that “there are no rules except political rules.”
I coulda told you that, Mr. Ainsa.
The Council voted to deny item 27A (the request approving Hunt’s site plan for the arroyo) 6-2 (the no votes being Cook and Escobar).
Cobos then made a motion to delete item 1 on the additions (Ainsa’s item) by 6-2 (Austin and Lozano were the no votes this time).
And that – for the time being – was that. The neighborhood won this part of the battle, but as I said in last week’s notes, this is probably the beginning of the legal war.
Congratulations to the activists on a job well done. I’m very glad that the Council decided to save this important piece of El Paso land. It must have been especially fun for Wardy, though: he got to support a neighborhood full of activist voters while at the same time was able to kill Woody Hunt’s project (Woody Hunt is the developer in this case). If you recall, Mr. Hunt helped derail Wardy’s efforts to build a mall using taxpayer money next to Cielo Vista Mall. Wardy made no bones about his anger during Council meetings where Hunt’s representatives pointed out the flaws in Wardy’s plans.
My last word on this issue has to do with the root of the problem: the City selling off land that belongs to all of us. If you recall, the Public Service Board (of which our Mayor is a member) holds our land. Several years ago, developers wanted to get their hands on land at the foot of our Franklin mountains (http://www.rioweb.org/Archive/ept_psblandsale011201.html). This summer, they came a step closer to that (http://www.epwu.org/story52.html).
Instead of avoiding future battles like this one, Wardy & Co are still selling off pieces of our community that most of us will probably fight for in the future. Once the land is sold, the development process begins. Community groups and activists would be wise to continue their efforts but should also address the root of the problem as well.
Minutes, Minutes Everywhere, But Not a Detail to Drink
Passed on the consent agenda (with the exception of the 7/20/04 Council Meeting minutes, which Vivian Rojas asked to postpone approval of for the second time) were more minutes.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: [Municipal Clerk, Richarda Duffy Momsen, (915) 541-4127]
(Attachment) - Regular City Council Meeting 7/20/04
(Attachment) - Regular City Council Meeting 8/03/04
(Attachment) - Special City Council Meeting 8/02/04
(Attachment) - Special City Council Meeting 8/04/04
I complained last week that the minutes are woefully inadequate. The most detail we get is usually along the lines of “Mr. X commented and answered questions about the item.” Sorry, folks, but for someone who lives for juicy details like your old friend Sid, that just ain’t enough to even whet my appetite.
Personal Personnel Issues
Also passed on the consent agenda was the following item:
5N. That the Mayor be authorized to sign a Contract amendment between the CITY OF EL PASO and BLANCA M. GONZALEZ, to add fringe benefits to the contract. As a full time contractor, eligibility for fringe benefits is standard. (Attachment) [Mayor & Council, Jim Martinez, (915) 541-4015]
Ms. Gonzalez is Jim Martinez’s secretary (Martinez is our interim CAO). It came to my attention a few months ago that Ms. Gonzalez, like other members of the Mayor’s staff, was receiving quite a special deal to come work for the City, and these deals were not available to any other City staffers (long-time City Hall veterans).
Apparently, this special treatment of the Mayor’s people has not gone unnoticed by the hard-working folks at City Hall. In fact, most of the City employees who contact me have all told me that they’ve just about had it with the inflated salaries and fringe benefits that these staffers are rewarded with.
Last week, an email was circulated around the 10th floor, which outlines the Mayor’s staff’s salaries.
Here is an excerpt from that email:
The following is information pertaining to Mayor's staff:
Laura Uribarri - $70,000
Adrian Ocegueda - $65,000
Delia Cortinas - $35,000 (she is also provided with a cell phone; in previous administration's I have never known the city providing the executive secretary with this benefit).
Juliet Moreno (Secretary I) - $21,272.00
Angie Casares (Public Information Clerk) - $20,113
Mark Matthys (Public Relations Liasion) - $59,999
Blanca Gonzales - $35,006 (also receives a cell phone and a lap top
To take home because she is allowed to work from home; claims to be
Working full time although she is in office from 9:00 am to 1:00 or so)
Jim Martinez - $153,750
One of the individuals referenced in this email wasn’t too happy about it. An angry Blanca Gonzalez replied. Here’s an excerpt from her email:
i have absolutely no problem with my salary being disclosed, as it is public information. i do, however, find it very irresponsible on your part to add incorrect/insufficient information adjoined to my salary. let me please remind you that i had a baby three months ago…yes, i am only in the building from 9-1 every day (sometimes longer), but i work from home sometimes until 10 o'clock at night AND on saturdays and sundays. there is nothing in my office that goes unattended to. moreover, the cell phone you are referring to is MINE and no one pays me for my minutes. i more than welcome you to the challenge. Blanca M. Gonzalez
The reply to the reply? Well, here it is:
I will certainly take you up on "THE CHALLLENGE" (whatever that means). I too find it very irresponsible on your part to think that you are privileged! There are several women who also work day in and day out to be able to stay at home (whether it be for pregnancy, family illness or personal illness) because they do not have enough leave accumulated to get paid to be away from their jobs!!!! You have not been here more than a year and therefore you could not have enough leave accumulated to be able to stay at home for your "maternity leave". (I would have gladly donated some of my time towards your time away because fortunately I have enough time to do just that). I personally know of several instances where family members are terminally ill and the question was asked if these city employees could work from home and the response was NO! Therefore, my only concern is that the same benefit is not given to EVERYONE. I know of no one who has been extended this BENEFIT. What a joy it is to be able to stay at home and take care of family matters! If you are able to get away with this more power to you and your boss for allowing this to happen. Therefore, if this benefit is extended to you it is only fair the same courtesy should be given to everyone who needs it. Let me remind you that City Hall is not opened to the public for business on the weekends nor at 10:00 PM, therefore I can only say I am sorry you have to work such odd hours.
As you can imagine, the 10th floor VIPs were none too happy about it; I don’t know what will happen to the individual who initiated this exchange calling for fair and equitable treatment, but it probably won’t be a reward.
New Order: Power, Corruption and Lies (let’s sing along, shall we?)
I did not post this exchange simply because I love receiving and sharing good info; I decided to share these emails with you because they go to the root of one of the problems at City Hall. Folks I talk to have never seen such a blatant abuse of taxpayer money or power. Unfortunately for all of us, no one reports on it, and those who witness it either look the other way and remain silent or have no power to stop it.
Here’s another example of the brazen behavior. Lisa Elizondo, our City Attorney hand-picked by Joe Wardy, recently fired Mike Moffeit (he was hired in January to replace Laura Gordon, a long-time and well-respected litigator in the City Attorney’s office who was fired by Elizondo). Ms. Elizondo has recently committed two atrocities:
I don’t know when this community will begin to hold Wardy responsible for this out-of-control cronyism, but I sure hope it’s soon.
Irony Abounds
I found the following board appointment (which passed on the consent agenda) to be quite interesting:
8A. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: Aurora Valverde to the Mayor's Advisory Board on Aging by Mayor Joe Wardy. (Attachment) [Mayor Joe Wardy, (915) 541-4145]
Ms. Valverde is the same individual who has been the subject of many complaints from elderly residents of Sun Plaza (a housing community). In fact, when I did a quick search of her name, I found Housing Authority minutes from last year documenting the fact that a group of residents felt so strongly about her that they came before the HACEP Board of Commissioners to inform them that she “does not treat the residents with respect” (http://www.hacep.org/meeting_detail.sstg?id=29).
What was Wardy’s response? He appointed her to the HACEP Board of Commissioners last year and at this meeting he appoints her to the Advisory Board on Aging.
Gotta love Wardy’s approach. Next thing you know, he’ll appoint Jim Martinez to an Ethics Committee!
Speaking of the Tax Contract…
Also passed on the consent agenda:
14. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: This competitive sealed bid proposal is being awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the City, considering the relative importance of price and the other evaluation factors included in the request for proposal.
Bid No.: 2004-205R Performance Auditing Services for Delinquent Tax Collection Service Contract
Award to: Lauterback, Borschow & Co., P.C. El Paso, Texas
Item (s): All
Amount: $29,000.00
Department: Office of Management and Budget
Funds available: 99011273-01101-505413
Funding source: Office of Management & Budget-Operating Funds Special Items
Total award: $29,000.00
District (s): All
The review committee for the Award of Performance Auditing Services For Delinquent Tax Collection has met and reviewed the responsive Proposals that were received. It is the recommendation of the committee to award the RFP to this firm. The proposal response addressed the scope and intent of the RFP.
Additionally, random companies were selected from the list that had expressed interest in the RFP to determine why they did not submit responses. Most companies declined to submit a proposal. Additionally, it is requested authorization for City staff to negotiate, City Attorney's Office to review, and the Mayor be authorized to execute any related contract documents and agreements necessary during the contract. (Attachment) [Purchasing Department, Ray Heredia, (915) 541-4316]
See my Newspapertree notes of 12.22.2003 (http://www.newspapertree.com/newsletter.ssd?section=feature&c=46018cc98ea94887) for my comments on this “audit.” The title of the section is “Prelude to a Tax Contract?”
Project Under the Table
The final item of interest (much to your relief, I’m sure) was John Cook’s effort to renew funding to the Homeless Coalition:
20C. Discussion and Action on the adoption of strategic and funding priorities for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Social Service Collaboratives for the 31st CD Program Year (2005-2006), including, but not limited to, revising the funding allocations to the Social Service Collaboratives approved at the July 9, 2004 Special City Council Meeting. [Representative John F. Cook, (915) 541-4140]
You may or may not recall that this summer Mayor Wardy changed the way local groups access Community Development Block Grant social service funding (http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/borderland/20040713-142114.shtml). Wardy’s change meant that some social service funding would be diverted to Project Arriba, a local non-profit. I wrote about the City’s $120,000 commitment to Project Arriba last year and you can read all about my concerns related to it in Newspapertree archives (http://www.newspapertree.com/newsletter.ssd?section=feature&c=205e865d32954595). Here’s an excerpt of what I wrote:
For those of you who are not familiar with Project Arriba, it sounds like a great project that helps pay for incidentals (rent, child care, transportation, etc.) for people who are receiving training for high-paying jobs. But, that's about all I know about the program details. What I do know is that it is a non-profit that was created by EPISO (which also has a large presence on the Project ARRIBA board of directors).
EPISO's tactics, in my opinion, border on the unethical when it comes to finding money for their program, however. In fact, before each city and county election, EPISO holds what they call an "accountability" meeting and the main question EPISO is concerned with is whether or not each candidate is willing to give public money (once elected) to its non-profit. If a candidate refuses to pledge the public money from city or county coffers, he or she is identified as someone whom their membership should oppose. If they promise to find the money for Arriba, they are identified as the man or woman to support. While I agree that we need more projects like Arriba (or at least to focus more on good jobs instead of mall jobs), I find EPISO's heavy-handed tactics with political candidates reprehensible. If it is such a good program -- and it very well might be -- then there should be no need for such political blackmail.
Wardy has gone far beyond simply supporting this program. He has committed taxpayer money to it, made it one of our top federal priorities (so he’s asking for federal allocations to go to it instead of the entire community) and now he’s taking money away from social service organizations in order to continue to fund it.
I’ll say it again – it might be a great program, but it sure ain’t the only program around. I can’t help but suspect that because homeless folks don’t vote, they just aren’t as powerful a force as EPISO is (EPISO is the El Paso Interreligious Sponsoring Organization).
I also can’t help but wonder…why doesn’t Wardy just dip into his hefty campaign fund (which is nearing $200,000 if it hasn’t gotten there already) or just ask his fat cat friends (who recently paid $500 a pop to attend his Fourth of July re-election campaign fundraiser) to fund it if it’s such a great project (http://www.elpasotexas.gov/city_clerk/_documents/2004/Mayor%20Wardy/wardy_071504.pdf)?
I’ll tell ya why…because he doesn’t have to. We’re a much easier target, folks. Much to my dismay, he simply gets no resistance from El Pasoans and can raid the community chest at will.
Sigh.
Until next week, folks.