10.5.2004 addendum
“Until next week…” is how I
generally end my column each week. This
week, there’s an exception. Your old
buddy Sid is sending out an addendum to last week’s notes because an alert
reader pointed out the fact that I was asleep at the wheel and missed two very
important agenda items in my notes.
They are indeed important, and my only excuse is…must have been one of
those “natural occurrences!”
El Paso City Government: Where “Progressive” Means “Progressively More Debt!”
The following budget
transfer was taken off the consent agenda by Lisa Turner, a City Council
watcher and former candidate for District #8:
16D. BT2005-047
BUILDING AND PLANNING SERVICES Building and Planning Services proposes
to transfer $17,366.99 from an
unallocated project to the George Dieter project to fund the City's final
payment for this TxDOT project. Funding
source is 1995 COs. (District 6 and
District 7) (Attachment)
Decrease
$17,366.99 from 31131001/P50148827061/508027 Construction
Increase
$17,366.99 to 31131001/P50148827061/507001
IntrafdTrf(U)
Increase
$17,366.99 to 31131001/PPWST0303327072/407001
IntrafdTrf(S)
Increase
$17,366.99 to 31131001/PPWST0303327072/508027Construction
Vivian Rojas was the first
to question this item and wanted to know if this would be the last payment on
the George Dieter improvement project.
Pat Adauto, Deputy City Manager, explained that this budget transfer was
being made in order to “close out” the project and make the final payment to
the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). (The City, my friends, receives matching funds from the state for
projects like this; however, we have to pay our portion, which is usually in
the millions of dollars for large projects.)
Adauto further explained
that old Certificate of Obligation money from 1995 was being used to pay TxDOT;
back in June, she explained, Council had approved shifting this money ($5.6
million, to be exact) to an “unallocated” account in order to make TxDOT
payments.
Lisa Turner spoke, and
wanted to know how much money was in the fund and would this affect other
projects.
Adauto explained that the
City partnered with TxDOT for $12.3 million worth of projects; so far, the City
has found $5.6 million. Wardy, ever the
consummate mathematician (but who still cannot rival the mathematical/forensic
accounting skills of Robert Cushing), asked if this would mean the City would
soon face a $6 million shortfall to pay TxDOT the remainder of the matching
funds.
The answer from Adauto was a
reluctant yes. But she was quick to add
that the $6 million request would go before the voters in the next Capital
Improvements Project election.
Hmmm. Interesting. The City is planning on asking the voters for $6 million to cover
projects already underway in the next bond election (which will probably be
held, if Wardy is re-elected, in 2006).
But, my friends, what if the voters say no? After all, voters have pretty much had it with this mayor and
Council’s fuzzy math. If you ask me,
folks, Wardy, the man who ran on a “business” platform, and the guy who ran a
trucking company for most of his life, can’t seem to figure out how to balance
his budget and pay back matching fund debt at the same time (for Wardy, that
might be like asking him to pat himself on the head and rub his stomach at the
same time).
This is the same guy who
campaigned on “no debt without voter approval.” He believes he has to turn around and ask the voters for
permission to make routine expenditures that we expect our municipal government
to make as a matter of course (like paving streets). (If he thought it would garner him a few votes, Wardy would
probably ask the voters for permission to go to the bathroom.) This species of voter pandering was at the
heart of the last election, and while every other leader in Texas uses
Certificates of Obligation (COs) in order to avoid stalling work on basic,
essential infrastructure projects, for some strange reason, it worked with El
Paso voters.
But hey, according to Wardy,
that’s “progressive government,” right?
Let’s see if this $6 million matching fund debt passes next
election. If not, who knows what will
happen.
The Ultimate Do-Over
Ever wonder why the City of
El Paso needs competent legal representation?
Or how about expecting – at the very least – a City Attorney who knows
basic municipal rules?
Item 21 should be a serious
wake-up call to Wardy and Co. Readers
should take the time to actually read this item. It’s scary.
21. CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: Discussion and action regarding the adoption of an
ordinance, previously labeled as Ordinance No. 15809 by the City Clerk, the
vote by the City Council taken on June 15, 2004, and a finding as to the
results of that vote regarding the ordinance entitled, AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE OF CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS, GENERAL OBLIGATION COMMERCIAL PAPER
NOTES, SERIES B, IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000,000 FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING MONEY FOR CERTAIN AUTHORIZED PURPOSES; APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY IN THE SELLING AND DELIVERY OF SUCH NOTES, WITHIN THE
LIMITATIONS AND PROCEDURES SPECIFIED HEREIN; MAKING CERTAIN COVENANTS AND
AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH;
RESOLVING OTHER MATTERS INCIDENT AND
RELATED TO THE ISSUANCE, SALE, DELIVERY AND SECURITY OF THE NOTES,
INCLUDING THE APPROVAL OF AN ISSUING AND PAYING AGENCY AGREEMENT, A
CREDIT AGREEMENT, AN OFFERING MEMORANDUM AND A COMMERCIAL PAPER DEALER
AGREEMENT; to (1) make a finding that
the ordinance, as amended, did not receive affirmative votes from a majority of
the entire Council as required by Section 3.5 D of the City Charter and
therefore did not pass and was not adopted on June 15, 2004; and (2) pursuant to the El Paso City Charter and
Section 1201.028 of the Texas
Government Code, to provide for further consideration of the ordinance
and discussion and action by the City Council to approve it; the ordinance
having been introduced on May 4, 2004
and the public hearing held on June 15, 2004. (Attachment) [City Attorney,
Lisa A. Elizondo, (915) 541-4550]
Now if that agenda item
isn’t scary enough, check out the discussion that followed.
Norman Gordon, our bond
counsel (and attorney at Carl Green’s law firm), informed Council that on June
15, 2004, Council voted 4-3 to accept the $50,000,000 in General Obligation bonds
to fund the Capital Improvement Projects the voters approved in February. Gordon told Council that because this agenda
item levies a tax and issues bonds, it requires a “super majority,” not a
simple majority (in this case, it seems that because there were only 7 Council
members who voted, the super majority required was 5 affirmative votes). The four affirmative votes in June were not
enough to pass the agenda item and it therefore, in fact, failed. He further explained that because the
ordinance was introduced in May and the public hearing was held in July, it
could be voted on at this meeting without posting another introduction.
Robert Cushing wanted to
know how this issue had made the light of day and who caught the problem;
Normal Gordon said it was the Attorney General who had informed them of the
error. (Maybe, after firing Lisa
Elizondo, we should donate her $150,000 salary to the State Attorney General to
open up a branch office in City Council chambers.)
Cushing then launched into a
debate with both Norman Gordon and Assistant City Attorney Elaine Hengen about
whether or not this would be an amendment to the item (because of the new date
on the ordinance, 10/5/2004).
“So if we were to change the
date on what we’re coming forward with today, that wouldn’t be an amendment,
that would be a change,” stated Cushing.
Elaine Hengen corrected him
and explained that the date would only reflect the date the ordinance passed.
“But in other words we are
not, for all practical purposes, voting on the same document we did back then
because it now has a different date on which it becomes effective, which has a
definite bearing on the issuance of debt instruments,” he countered.
“You do not vote on the date
of the passage in the text of the ordinance,” insisted Hengen, adding that “You
vote on the ordinance itself and then the legal form of the ordinance would
reflect the date of the passage, which would be today.”
“Thank
you,” replied Cushing.
John Cook reminded Norman
Gordon that with the absence of Dan Power, a “super majority” would only be
four votes, so only four votes would be needed to pass the ordinance today.
Gordon said he was including
the mayor (which would make for a total of 8 voting members, requiring 5
affirmative votes to pass the ordinance).
Wardy replied, “But I can only vote in lieu of a tie!”
Gordon then said something
very important. He said “I haven’t
studied the procedure.” He focuses on
the requirements of the charter.
Cushing tried to answer the
question and then complained, “But that’s why we have lawyers, I guess.”
He’s right. That’s why we have lawyers. That’s why taxpayers are paying through the
nose for Carl Green and his bevy of experienced attorneys. That’s why we’re paying through the nose for
Wardy’s “dream team” of Elizondo and Martinez.
Let’s get back to the
question, though, my friends. If Gordon
doesn’t know “the procedure,” then just who at that meeting should know the
procedure?
Which one of the myriad
lawyers representing the City should know the City Charter, the rules of order
and the voting requirements? This is
not a trick question.
The answer: Our $154,000 a year City Attorney, Lisa
Elizondo, who never once entered this public conversation at the meeting. Hellloooo?
Anybody there? What does it take
to get someone to initiate this woman’s firing?
Lisa Turner urged that
Council post the item again because “when you voted for this it was 4-3 and
failed.” She added that what they have
now is “mushy and mixed up.” In my humble
opinion, she was right; it’s always best to err on the side of caution and
posting the item again and having a public hearing on this was the prudent way
to go. Council ignored her request.
Once the Council was ready
to vote, Elaine Hengen explained that the motion had to be made in two parts
(the first part finding that the original ordinance didn’t pass on June 15,
2004 and the second part passing the ordinance). Cook moved to pass the first finding and that motion passed unanimously.
Before the second part was voted
on (the actual passing of the ordinance), Cushing wanted to know what the
impact of the whole mess would be. I
already knew the answer, but I’m glad he asked. Remember, since June, interest rates have risen, and when we’re
talking millions of dollars of debt, even the slightest increase in rates makes
a huge difference. Since June, Council
also passed a budget and a tax rate, and both of those were based on certain
assumptions about financing costs for things like this $50,000,000 issuance.
Steven Adams, the City’s
bond advisor, said that while there is flexibility in the 2005 budget to
accommodate this change, “it will have an impact on future tax rates because of
the difference in interest rates.”
READ: This mistake will cost
taxpayers lots and lots of money! Maybe
Wardy, who just loves pandering to the voters, should ask them to vote in a
referendum on whether to retain Lisa Elizondo as City Attorney.
Susan Austin, forty-five
minutes into the meeting, then decided to ask the same question Cushing asked
about the ordinance at the beginning of the discussion…”are we amending
it?” I guess she, like Sid, can fall
asleep at the wheel sometimes!
Cook made a motion to pass
the ordinance and the motion passed unanimously (I guess those folks who voted
“no” on the ordinance back in June have had a change of heart; what a
difference four months makes).
You Don’t Have to Be a Star to Be in My Show (You Just Have to Be Competent)
Just after the vote was
taken, Cobos could be heard complaining, “Everyone’s an attorney now…we’ve got
a lot of attorneys in this room.”
True. But remember, according to Jabba, all you
need is a few “superstar” lawyers, eh?
Wake Up Call
My many thanks to Lisa
Turner for waking me up this week; sorry I left these two issues out last time,
folks. Until later this week…
Comments or questions: shmaven@yahoo.com
My commentaries are posted weekly at http://www.thestrelz.com/shm/shm.htm
Also, if any of my readers would like to
add their own comments or thoughts, they can do that at
http://strelzbacktalk.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=shm