2.1.2005
This week, it was the return
of Luis Sariñana! And he brought some
friends. Read on!
The Minute Men
Passed on the consent agenda
were the following items:
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: [Municipal Clerk, Richarda
Duffy Momsen, (915) 541-4127] Approval of Minutes for Regular City Council
Meeting of January 25, 2005 and Special City Council Meetings of
January 20, 2005 (Planning Session) and January 21, 2005 (Arroyos).
(Attachment) Minutes for
Regular City Council Meeting held on January 25, 2005
(Attachment) Minutes for
Special City Council Meeting (Planning Session) held on January 20, 2005
(Attachment) Minutes for
Special City Council Meeting (Arroyos) held on January 21, 2005
The minutes for the January
20th meeting are interesting.
At that meeting, Joyce Wilson discussed the coming budget (which, if you
recall, folks, is $7 million short already).
There are a couple of interesting items to note in these minutes: Wilson points out that Council balanced this
year’s budget by taking a chunk out of the City’s savings account (reserves)
and, according to the notes, “she asked that the policy of using reserves be
examined.” Good move. Eating up your savings account will only
work once.
Also, Cushing asked for
Wilson to review fees and other sources of revenue early on into the
process. Could that mean that we will
be balancing the budget on increased fees again? Interesting, especially in light of the inspections issue you’ll
read about later in my notes.
The other very interesting
item of note is that Wilson mentioned that she will want to create a Charter
Review Committee with the new City Council once they are elected. Hmmm.
Could she be wanting more charter revisions? I’m intrigued!
I should have my hot little
hands on a tape of that meeting soon, and if anything else interesting pops up,
I’ll be sure to report back to you.
Coming Soon: Council’s Convenient Commission!
During the routine section
of the meeting where Council introduces ordinances that are up for public
hearing in two weeks, Stuart Mitchell wanted to discuss the following ordinance
introductions before they were approved:
20A. An Ordinance amending Title 2 of the
Municipal Code of the City of El Paso
(Administration and Personnel), by adding a new Chapter 2.38 (Building and
Standards Commission), authorized by Texas Local Government Code 54.043, to
hear and determine cases concerning violations of Chapter 18.50 of the
Municipal Code without further appeal to City Council; the civil penalty for
violation of a commission order not to exceed One-Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00)
per day per violation for non-homestead property and ($10.00) per day per
violation for homestead property as provided in Section 2.38.110 of the
Municipal Code. (Attachment) [Building Permits
and Inspections, R. Alan Shubert, (915) 541-4557]
20B. An Ordinance amending Title 18
(Building and Construction) of the El Paso Municipal Code, by deleting Chapter
18.52 (Unsafe Structures and Conditions) and creating Chapter 18.50 (Property
Maintenance Code), and adopting the 2003 Edition of the International Property
Maintenance Code to provide minimum requirements and standards for the use,
occupancy and maintenance of existing structures and premises. The penalty being as provided in Section
18.02.107 of no more than Two-Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) per day per
violation. (Attachment) [Building Permits
and Inspections, R. Alan Shubert, (915) 541-4557]
Mitchell said,
“I think we ought to talk about this before the public hearing,” and he said he
was primarily concerned about item 20A.
When Wardy told Mitchell that the public usually doesn’t get to address
Council regarding the introductions of the ordinances, Austin said she had told Mitchell to be there to
voice his concerns.
Pat Adauto, Assistant City
Manager for Building Services (referring to item 20A) explained that 18 months
ago, a Legislative Review Committee (which is composed of members of Council)
asked for this new committee; the idea went through the Building and Zoning
Advisory Committee and condemnations will now go before this newly created
Building and Standards Commission.
Regarding item 20B, she explained, the Building and Zoning Advisory
Committee has also been working on this to replace property maintenance code,
also as directed by City Council.
Stuart Mitchell explained
that, “Our continuing concern is that as we build commissions and committees,
that the average citizen of El Paso not be left out.” He pointed out that the
makeup of this new Commission is heavily dominated by the building and development
industry. “I wish to call to your
attention and to the staff’s attention the importance of dealing more even
handedly with the citizens of El Paso.”
He also opined that a 27-member commission to deal with quasi-judicial
findings of fact would be unwieldy.
“A smaller commission with a
little bit of balance?” asked Wardy.
“In the end, I believe we’ll get there,” he said.
Council approved the
introduction of these two ordinances and they’ll be back in two weeks for a
public hearing.
Covenanting thy Neighbor’s Land
Representative John Cook
placed the following item on the agenda, and its focus is the sale of Public
Service Board (PSB) land and restrictions placed on that land by the PSB:
21C. Discussion and Action on the authority of the El
Paso Water Utilities, a City of El Paso Department, under the auspices of the
Public Service Board to place dictate development criterion on City of El Paso
owned lands which have been declared surplus to the needs of the system. [Representative John F. Cook, (915)
541-4140]
Cook explained that the PSB
spent $500,000 to come up with a master plan for 6,000 acres in northeast El
Paso. In a recent Request for Proposals
(RFP) that the utility issued after deciding to sell some land, it requested
that architectural design work and colors of buildings be determined and
enforced by the utility. Cook said that
while he agrees with architectural controls, those controls belong in the
city’s planning department, not with the utility. He wanted to send the PSB a clear message that the City takes
care of that.
Wardy expressed his
agreement with Cook but, possibly inspired by Luis Sariñana’s presence, garbled
his message. “There was [sic] a couple
of mistakes made because it is not the authority of the PSB to issue these
items so an addendum to the bids was issued on Thursday, January 28th…which
talked about the use of the properties being sold, which I think is within the
realm of the master plan to have broad language there.”
Stuart Mitchell, President
of the Mountain Arroyo Neighborhood Association, said that while he agreed that
the PSB should not be determining architectural issues, his organization
believes that “it is extremely important for the PSB in cooperation with the
City to put clear covenants into the agreements that will achieve certain
planning standards as we go along.”
I completely agree. The PSB holds our community’s land in trust,
and covenants on that land should definitely be put in place in order to
preserve open spaces and to create conditions that must be met by developers.
Susan Austin asked Wardy if
the architectural controls on land sold by the PSB were within the control of
the Planning Department as Wardy had asserted during the discussion.
Wardy
said, “That is a city function.”
“To determine architectural
standards?” she asked. Wardy was no
longer certain. Austin explained that
the City is a regulator and cannot put architectural controls on land. She also seemed to agree with Mitchell that
the PSB can indeed place covenants on land it is about to sell.
Wardy said that “There is no
support on the PSB to enforce architectural, uh, what was that, standards and
color design for this piece of property.”
Austin replied, “That’s
fine…but I didn’t want to leave some misimpression that that responsibility was
flipping to the City.”
Wardy added that the reason
the PSB earmarked that particular land for sale was “to meet an urgent need for
housing starts with the anticipation of the growth we’re having from El Paso
and from Fort Bliss.”
Mitchell said that his
association’s position was that “It is extremely important for the PSB to put
clear covenants into the agreements for sale that require achieving certain
planning standards for these developments as we go along,” he said. He added that they “applaud the PSB” for
creating the master plans in the first place.”
So do I, Mr. Mitchell. Wardy, of
course, had absolutely nothing to do with that, as it was the previous Mayor
(Ray Caballero) and the previous PSB board that did it:
http://www.elpasoinc.com/Archive/03_02_16/CoverStory2.html
Susan Austin asked Mitchell
if he was officially representing the neighborhood association on this
issue. He said he was. Austin, again delving into the inner
workings of a recognized neighborhood association, then asked how they had
arrived at that position. Mitchell had
to explain the process.
There
was no further discussion or action taken on that item.
Damn the Torpedos, Part Deux
Passed with very little
discussion:
22A. Discussion
and action regarding the appeal by
Michael Hyneman of "Steakpedos and Spirits" at 1815 Trawood,
Suite "A" for the sale of alcoholic beverages due to the business's
proximity to a day care in accordance with Section 20.08.090(B).4 of the El
Paso Municipal Code. (District 7) (Attachment) [Building Permits
and Inspections, R. Alan Shubert, (915) 541-4557] POSTPONED FROM 01/25/05,
01/04/05 AND 12/28/04
Despite the fact that Vivian
Rojas seemed to personally oppose this license, City staff pointed out to her
that a license cannot be denied as state code supercedes local code and the
state law allows a license there. The
item was deleted because it required no action.
Building Inspections…get ‘em fast and
easy!
The following items created
third-party inspections—something the developers and builders have been working
on for a long time:
22B. Discussion and action on a Resolution that the
Amended Pre-Qualification Requirements and Procedures, as related to the
Selection Procedures for Third Party Plan Review and/or Inspection Companies,
pursuant to Section 18.02.101.4.9 of the El Paso Municipal Code, is hereby approved
by the City Council of the City of El Paso as attached hereto as Attachment
"A". This action is intended
to supercede the adoption of the previous resolution, dated May 11, 2004. (Attachment) [Building Permits
and Inspections, R. Alan Shubert, (915) 541-4557]
26C. An Ordinance amending Title 18 (Building and
Construction), Chapter 18.02 (Building and Construction Administrative Code),
Section 18.02.101.4.9 (Selection Procedures for Third Party Plan Review
Services) of the El Paso Municipal Code, to provide for the inspection of
Buildings and Structures by approved Third Party companies and to enumerate a
selection procedure for said companies.
(Attachment) [Building Permits
and Inspections, R. Alan Shubert, (915) 541-4557]
Passage of these items will
allow third parties—private companies—to conduct inspections for new buildings
or improvements to existing buildings.
Builders will still have the option of going through the City’s
Inspection Department if they choose, but they’ve been fighting for the right
to have options on this for a long time.
Obviously, their time had come.
Devils and Details
Knowing what I know about
outsourcing in general, I had three questions as this discussion began: 1) Will there be layoffs in the City
Inspections department; 2) will the City (and taxpayers) lose out on an important
revenue stream since the builders pay the City Inspections Department
inspection fees; and 3) how will we deal with the conflict of interest
issue—unlike city inspectors (honest ones, at least), private companies may
have a vested interest in allowing builders to cut corners. (And anyone who thinks that builders don’t
cut corners is living in Egypt.) If a
private inspector is too strict with a builder, that company may not get any
repeat business.
Before the public was
allowed to give input, Lisa Hayes, Assistant City Attorney, explained that some
of the language in the ordinance would have to be revised because of additional
requirements needed for plumbing inspectors.
Apparently, one of the issues the City failed to address was the fact
that plumbing inspectors are required by state law to contract with the
City. How, then, would the City allow
the hiring of outside plumbing inspectors, I wondered? But oh, well, details, details…don’t worry
about the details!
After a discussion about the
plumbing inspector issues and those requirements (and how they would just be
ironed out over time), Representative Cook wanted to know what the impact of
outsourcing the inspections on new buildings (or improvements to existing
buildings) would be to City staff. (After he asked that, I put a check mark
next to question number 1 on my list!)
Alan Shubert, Director of
Building and Inspections, said they didn’t really know, but he did believe that
some City inspectors may want to retire and go work for private inspectors.
This
is getting more and more interesting!
Building Inspections: Buy One Get One Free?
Representative Cook, who
seemed to have been reading my mind said, “I’ll be real candid. What my concern is what the budgetary impact
is going to be to the City if all of a sudden all the third-party inspections
take over all the building inspections.
And I would say that the temptation to the builders would be to only use
this outside service and not to use the existing staff, which we have to pay
their salaries or lay them off. And if
I’m not mistaken, you had some concerns along those same lines when this first
came to light.”
Alan Schubert admitted that
he still has those same concerns. “When
we passed the plan review ordinance and as the ordinance exists in front of you
today, it doesn’t give the builder any discount to use the third-party
services. But I have been directed by
the City Manager, in fact, we and OMB have been directed by the City Manager to
establish what the plan will be to start offering a discount if they’re using a
third party and what the impact to the budget will be and what our plan is for
staffing at that time.”
Cook asked why we would want
to offer a discount to the builders, who are simply happy to have the option of
third-party inspections. This caused me
further concern—not only would we lose out on the inspection fees the City was
receiving before, but now taxpayers would be giving the builders a discount as
well?
Cook said, “It would seem to
me that if they’re smiling already, we should just take the money and run if
we’re gonna go with this.”
City Manager Joyce Wilson
explained, “We indicated initially that it would be revenue neutral at least
this fiscal year, potentially going into the next fiscal year, but that there
would be a consideration of looking at stepping it down once we see what the
implications are relative to internal vs. external use of these services. At the end of the day, we’re really talking
about service and providing alternatives to expedite service delivery in this
area and we have to look at all options and so certainly for purposes of budget
exploration, we need to be open to exploring those options. It may not be our recommendation at the end
of the day, but staff has been asked to look at that so that when we go into the
budget process we’ve at least explored and considered that as part of the
overall budget development.”
Cook said the building
community was sensitive to the City’s budgetary issues and had indicated to him
that they didn’t need a discount so that there wouldn’t be an impact on the
City’s budget.
Cushing, who would of course
do anything to help his good buddy Bobby Bowling, reminded Cook that the
discount is not mandatory, only an option.
Doing his usual routine of asking leading questions, he tried to make
the point that the ultimate goal was to help expedite building and new
construction.
Shubert, responding to one
of Cushing’s assertions about how this will ultimately be beneficial to the
city, said, “I do feel it can be beneficial.
To say that it will be beneficial requires that we have it set up where
it works well. There have been several
communities start third-party and quit third-party…there have also been several
take it and expand it, and a lot of that has to do with how good a job you did
setting it up, monitor and audit it.”
In other words, the devil’s in the details, my friends. And while we have our devils on Council and
in the Mayor’s Office, we don’t seem to have enough in those pesky details.
Lozano piped in and said, “I
know that we should be very concerned about our city employees and staff and
all that, but it’s more important to be more concerned about our citizens and
our builders and our homeowners and third-party inspection should be positive. And I don’t believe we should charge the
same amount as we’re charging with the third-party. They should get a break, you know, we’re doing work for nothing.”
Yeah! Those poor builders…they need a break!
Wardy, again speaking to his
base—the developers and builders sitting in the audience intently watching the
discussion—proclaimed, “There’s a balance you do in this exercise...as we roll into this it may require that we sacrifice,
could be we sacrifice some revenue in all this in order to expedite
this service for our community.”
Um, excuse me? Sacrifice some revenue…in the face of a
budget shortfall? Wow. That’s generous. And what “community” is Wardy referring to, you ask? THE BUILDING COMMUNITY, my friends. While you and I have to pay increased bridge
fees and maybe park and recreation fees and heaven knows what other new fees
these guys can pull out of their . . . ., Wardy’s philosophy, like Lozano’s, is
let’s give the poor, oppressed builders a break. After all…there are all those Hummers waiting at Bravo!
Lozano, who hasn’t seemed to
have grasped that collecting less revenue means…well…collecting less revenue,
said, “One last comment, you know, it’s about, you know, cutting the budget,
you know, we’re facing a new budget restraint this coming year, so obviously,
that’s, you know, it’s good, in the long run and affect our budget cuts, it
could help, positive.”
What? I’ve heard of people thinking in less than
complete sentences, but Lozano seems to think virtually in single words. If he keeps going down this road, eventually
he’ll be communicating with grunts.
Then again, maybe old Alex had been “lighting the flag” again. In any case, I think he was confusing
cutting revenue with cutting the budget.
An easy mistake to make in his world, I guess.
Cobos Waxes Eloquent on Bribery
Representative Cook had an
excellent question for legal (check mark on item number three, now). “If, for example, you have a City inspector
and somebody offers him money under the table for approving something, he comes
under a state statute that’s called ‘bribing a public official’ or some term
like that. “Would these private party
people come under the same state statutes or not?”
Lisa
Hayes, Assistant City Attorney, said she didn’t believe so.
“I’m wondering what kind of
controls [against bribery] we would have under this new third-party,” asked
Cook.
Quite appropriately, Cobos,
Council’s greatest authority on graft at the municipal level, seemed compelled
to address the bribery question. Of
course, he would be the one to knowledgeably (and in private, fondly) discuss
bribery. He said, “Mayor, if I may
interject, I think the fear or the deterrent is losing license. I think that would be pretty much it.”
“The other deterrent was
that they go to jail,” responded Cook—jail clearly being the more appropriate
consequence.
While I agree with Cook, our
FBI, SO and PD seem to be pretty asleep at the wheel, so if I were a private
sector building inspector, I don’t think I’d worry too much about having law
enforcement doing its job on the bribery front.
Alan Shubert said that if
the City were to discover a situation like that, the inspector would be
disqualified immediately.
Also quite appropriately,
Wardy—who learned everything he knows about graft at the feet of Cobos—tried to
downplay the problem of bribery and dismissively and flippantly asked Shubert,
“I mean, when was the last time we fired someone in El Paso for taking a
bribe? I mean, not to say that it
hasn’t happened or has happened, but in recent history have we ever discharged
someone?” His confident mien
disappeared like a thief in the night when Shubert responded, “About a year and
a half ago.” Oops.
Seven people signed up to
speak, and Wardy announced that they would each only have a very limited time
at the podium.
Michelle Kirschner with
Metro Code Analysis said she had worked with the City on the third-party
permitting and said, “It’s been a blast doing plan review!” Wow.
You obviously lead a very sheltered life, Ms. Kirschner. But then who am I to talk? I sit through hours and hours of City
Council every week and then spend days writing about it. Since I haven’t been “lighting the flag” for
years, maybe I should try “plan review” instead. Might give my life a whole new meaning. Anyway, Ms. Kirschner said she was looking forward to doing
inspections. Yeehaw! She said the City of Fort Worth never laid
off City staff when they implemented third-party permitting because the city
experienced huge growth. Yikes!
I guess because Kirschner
was a woman, Lozano flirtatiously said, “It’ll be a nice change of
inspectors!” She giggled in
response. Emboldened by her giggles,
Lozano added, “It’ll be a nice, fresh look into the City of El Paso and inspectors!” She replied, “Thank you!” I wanted to gag.
When Lisa Turner, the next
speaker, approached the podium, Lozano jovially asked, “Are you an
inspector?” She said she was not. She then asked if all third-party inspectors
would be required to post a bond. Wardy
asked City Attorney Elizondo to respond, and because she was being forced to
answer a legal question, her breath nervously quickened as she carefully said,
“I believe so.” Lisa Hayes jumped in to
save her boss and answered the question more fully. Thank heavens for that.
If Hayes hadn’t been there, I’m sure Elizondo would have demanded that
her attorneys produce several memos on the question of bonds for third-party
inspectors (fully annotated with an addendum covering the history of
third-party inspections in the U.S. and another explaining the legal theory
underpinning the requirement of posting bonds). Gotta keep those stats up, Lisa E.!
Turner’s next question was
if a builder would be able to set up a second company that would work on
inspections, and the answer was no.
He’s BAAAAACK!
Luis Sariñana, a former City
Council representative whose tradition of (unintentional) comedic stylings has
been ably continued by Alexandro Lozano, then appeared at the podium. For those of you who have just become
Council groupies during the current administration, let me tell you a little
about Mr. Sariñana. Sariñana is part of
a long line of unethical local elected officials. Like many of them, Sariñana is inarticulate, poorly educated and
easily manipulated. Like them, his
strings were pulled by folks who knew they’d get their way with a few measly
campaign contributions. I don’t believe
Sariñana had a profession before becoming a City rep, but he’s got one now!
Sariñana introduced himself
as co-owner of Unlimited Inspections Services, and said he was there to bring
up some “important issues.” Folks, if I
had to bet which company would probably be working on those “under the table”
contracts, guess which one I’d put my money on.
He said that this ordinance
started 2-3 years ago (while he was in office). He proclaimed that there would not be an impact on the City’s
current budget because there is already a budget in place!
A Mighty Windbag
He said the point of the
ordinance was to give builders an option.
And then he launched into a very long-winded discussion about the City,
City employees, and third-party review.
Wardy gave him carte blanche to attack City employees (never asking him
for specific examples). Because I love
to get this guy on the record whenever possible, I’ve very carefully
transcribed for you most of his testimony:
“And
telling you that being in business now for five months, I have seen nothing but
delays within the City of El Paso, and it’s unfortunately for me to stand here
and tell you that it’s been very annoying.
It’s been very aggravating to have to wait for plans submitted by a
third party, sit there at the Inspections Department on the fifth floor for
days and days and days. And, uh, I
think you can see that the builders feel that frustration as well. And we’ve lost a big contract, and that was
Saratoga because of the problems that insisted [I believe he meant “existed”]
within the City of El Paso, and that hurts companies, not only Unlimited, but
I’m sure Metro as well. And there’s two
companies that existed here in El Paso as we speak, and that is Metro and
Unlimited Inspection Services, and we need to find a way to find a mechanism to
expedite services within the City of El Paso and I think when we’re talking
about third-party, we’re talking about quality of life, we’re talking about services,
quality services, and on-timely services as well. And I think the City of El Paso right now they are so swamped
they cannot produce this kind of work as we speak.
And
not only that but I’m gonna go back to when I was in City Council some years back. The mentality of the City of El Paso, and
Mayor and Council, I don’t know if you all agree with me, but is “can’t do
attitude.” We have to change that,
Mayor. We have to change the “can’t do
attitude” and I think you brought up that, uh, when you were campaigning for
election. You brought up that point
that we have to find a way that “we can do” attitude, not that we can’t do
it. And I think that City employees,
when they’re under Civil Service, many times I guess they feel that, uh, that
they’re untouchable because you know they are protected by Civil Service, and
as long as you remain under that mechanism or under that umbrella that is civil
service, I think it’s gonna be very difficult to change these peoples’
attitudes.
But
when you’re dealing with a third party, these people are not gonna sit there
and, and, and tell the builders or our clients that we can’t do it. Our job is to go out there and find a way to
do it. And it is our job. That’s why we’re getting paid for. But one of the things that we keep hearing
by the builders that are out there that it’s very difficult for them to pay the
City the full amount of the permit fee and then pay the third party an
additional fee. I think that that’s what’s
hurting third parties as well because, you know, we’re required to be
bonded. Our insurance costing us
somewhere between $8-10,000 a year, and it’s very difficult to work under those
criterias.
Now,
one last thing that I wanna bring up, Mayor, is the audit system that it’s in
place, and I think that Alan had brought up that before that if we make a
mistake, under our insurance the City’s going to be covered because it’s really
out of the City’s hands, and the builders, I don’t think that they’re
responsible. I think that is gonna fall
under the third party.”
Okay, that was as much as I
could stomach. There was more, but I’ll
stop. You get the idea.
I was curious about
Sariñana’s partner and so I looked him up under the “assumed names” section of
the County. It took me a while to find it
and ultimately I had to look it up under his last name because Sariñana misspelled the name of his company for the
county! It’s under “Ulimited”
Inspection!
When Alan Schubert wanted to
respond to Sariñana’s comments (presumably, the attacks on his staff), Wardy
said, “We’re not gonna engage in a debate here.” This is more of Wardy’s “considering all the dissenting points of
view.” Got it.
Ethics Shmethics
Stuart Mitchell from the
Mountain Arroyos Neighborhood Association said that his Association is
concerned about the fact that this is a public hearing on “major legislation to
change the way we inspect buildings” and “we haven’t really gotten to dealing
with the fundamental ethical issues.”
He said the major ethical problem will not come from bribery or conflict
of interest issues, but instead, from the fact that “an inspector’s business
depends on getting repeat business from the same builders, from the same
developers.” Exactly. He urged Council, “Please, become the
ethical watchdogs for the City! Don’t
allow an ordinance to be adopted here that has not thought carefully through
the ethical impact that keeps the people of El Paso safe.”
I wanted to whisper to
Mitchell, “Uh, sir, while I totally agree with you, talking to these folks
about ethics is like talking to my dog about sniffing others’ privates in
public. It just won’t do ya any good,
man!”
Extremism in the Defense of Builders Is
No Vice
Mitchell added, “Government
works for the taxpayers. Inspectors,
however, when they are third-party private inspectors, end up working for the
builders. They have to because that’s
the source of their revenue.” Wardy
naturally disagreed with Mitchell.
Mitchell is absolutely
correct, and if the builders have waited this long, I don’t understand why they
couldn’t wait an additional week or two in order to get some ethics issues
cleared up within the ordinance.
Cobos, who didn’t at all
take to Mitchell’s concerns, called Mitchell’s suggestions “extreme,” and said,
“I think what you’re proposing is totalitarian intervention and control by the
City government.” So addressing obvious
ethical issues created by a new statutory regime is “totalitarianism.” I love it!
Who’s the extremist here, Tony?
Cobos added that in his opinion, the City should expand third-party at
the City and force all City departments to compete with the private sector.
Bobby Bowling, part owner of
Joe Wardy, Anthony Cobos, Robert Cushing and other members of Council, was next
to speak. He complained that he had
only one place to go to for his permits and inspections, and said, “it’s not an
easy process to go through.” He said that the industry has been waiting and
working on this for the last five years.
“This ordinance in its present form is just fine and it has all the
safeguards that y’all need as a city.”
Right. And we should take advice
about ethics safeguards from this guy?
Got it.
Randy Bowling, the President
of the El Paso Association of Bowlings…er…Builders, called this an
“opportunity” and said that they [Tropicana Homes, I presume] are continuing to
grow and the City either needs to hire more inspectors or approve this
third-party inspections ordinance. He said
this would be a feather in our community’s cap and urged them to pass the
measure. He assured Council that he
would continue to work with Alan Schubert to work out those pesky little kinks
in the system. I wonder who Mr.
Schubert’s supervisor really is—is it Joyce Wilson, our City Manager, or Randy
Bowling, Cowardy string-puller? Hmpf.
Ray Adauto, Executive
Director for the El Paso Association of Bowlings…er…Builders, complained that
the industry is “being left out of the citizenship of El Paso. We build El Paso; we create the property taxes
that help fund City government; the more we can build properly, the more we can
develop under your guidelines…the more property taxes we’re gonna have for the
City of El Paso…This is our time, we are at that crossroads…in order to get
together to get our butts in gear...I beg you…to pass this resolution now, this
ordinance.” This guy is the perfect
“face” for the Bowlings…er…Builders.
Cushing moved to approve the
ordinance with the amendments to the plumbing inspections mentioned by Lisa
Hayes early on in the discussion.
Both items passed
unanimously as amended. Ray Adauto then
came to the podium and said, “I thank you on behalf of the citizens of El
Paso.” Wardy said, “Good job, Council!”
I eagerly waited for some
in-depth analysis about the ordinance and the ethics issues, but what I got was
a public relations piece from the El Paso
Times instead: http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/business/20050202-18583.shtml
At
some point, ya gotta give up hope, eh?
Change Orders
John Cook made an excellent
change to the following item:
24.
PURCHASING - BID: If apparent
low bidder is disqualified for any reason, City Council reserves the right to
exercise any option legally available under the law by awarding bid to next
lowest responsive and responsible bidder even though the bidder is not named on
this agenda.
Solicitation
No.: 2005-053 North Park Drainage Improvements
Contractor:
J.A.R. Concrete, Inc.
El Paso, Texas
Department: Street
Department
Funds Available:
14200403-PBE04ST122-29137-508027
Funding Source:
2004 Bond Election
Items: Base
Bid $1,497,583.00
Alternate
1 $66,834.00
Total Award: $ 1,564,417.00
District (s): 4
The Departments of Engineering and Streets recommend
the award of this contract to J.A.R. Concrete, Inc., the low responsible,
responsive bidder. It is requested that the Mayor of the City of El Paso be
authorized to sign the referenced contract.
Additionally, it is requested that the Mayor be authorized to execute
budget transfers for this award and project, as necessary. As part of the award
of this contract, the City Engineer is authorized to approve contract changes
which are necessary for proper construction of the work and carrying out the
intent of the design, but which do not increase the scope of the contract as
awarded, in an amount not to exceed $25,000 per numbered change order, and not
to exceed the total of 25% of the original contract price as awarded, without
further authorization by City Council (Attachment) [Purchasing
Department, Barbara Crumley, (915) 541-4315]
After Byron Johnson, the
Director of Purchasing made his presentation about the item, John Cook asked
about the language regarding approval of contract changes “not to exceed the
total of 25% of the original contract.”
Cook said, “We’re talking
about a contract for $1.4 million…change orders could exceed 25% total…they
could exceed over a quarter of a million dollars and still be in conformance
with this [contract]…that’s a lot of money.”
Cobos asked if change orders
require the approval of City Council and Byron Johnson said only if they exceed
$25,000.
Cook
said he felt more comfortable approving anything over $100,000.
Joyce Wilson said that it
really was staff’s responsibility to monitor the change orders in order to
prevent any excessive spending.
Cook said, “I think I have a
fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers.
If these contracts exceed over $100,000, I should at least be aware of
it.” He made a motion to amend the
resolution, forcing staff to keep the additional allowable costs to 10% instead
of 25%, and it passed unanimously.
A Costly Error
The following item cost the
entire City a pretty penny:
25. PUBLIC
HEARING - BUILDING AND PLANNING SERVICES: An Ordinance repealing Ordinance No.
014764, an Ordinance closing the public hearing and levying assessments for
part of the costs of street improvements in the Kimberly Heights Subdivision,
El Paso, El Paso County, Texas; fixing a lien and charge against property
abutting the improved streets and against the owners thereof; and providing for
the collection of such assessments thereof.
(District 5) (Attachment) [Building and Planning Services, Patricia D.
Adauto, (915) 541-4853]
Folks, in case you didn’t
know, the City annexed some land on the east side in 1977 known as Kimberly
Heights. When the Kimberly Heights
subdivision was constructed, developers (those great guys who produce all those
tax revenues for the City) didn’t bother creating sidewalks and other necessary
improvements to the area (costs generally built in to the price of a newly
built home). Kimberly Heights residents
demanded that the City pick up the tab for those improvements, and the original
agreement between the City and the neighborhood was that the property owners
would pay for the improvements over time.
Well, this week, because of the City’s mistake, the residents of
Kimberly Heights got a big break (http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/borderland/20050202-18569.shtml).
Pat Adauto, Assistant City
Manager for Building Services, explained that “The work was completed in May
2003 at a cost of $2.5 million. We were
in the process of doing the assessment and initiating the collection of those
assessments, which as we reported to Council, certain steps critical to that
process were not originally undertaken.
And in order to pursue that process we would have to recommence that
process and instead City Council directed that we repeal that ordinance and
that’s the item in front of you today…if City Council approves this ordinance,
that means that there will be no assessment against the property owners and the
City will pay the bonds that were issued for this project out of the ad-velorum
taxes, which is how the bond order was written.”
Presi Ortega said he was
happy with the end result and said the residents had 30 years without water
service or drainage improvements while still paying taxes.
John Cook acknowledged the
“painful experience” this has been for the residents of Kimberly Heights and
asked if we are setting a precedent for all the other neighborhoods who lack
similar services and gave an example of a neighborhood in his district with the
same if not worse problems.
Adauto said that the City
can still collect from the other areas if they are improved; the City would
just have to “follow the statute verbatim, which was not done in this case.”
Cook said that the City
would have to explain to the residents in the northeast and upper valley who
need the same kind of improvements why they will have to pay while Kimberly
Heights was let off the hook. He’s
absolutely, positively right.
I also have a question. Where were the overpaid “superstar” lawyers
when all of this happened?
Folks, we all pay
taxes. And while I’m extremely
sympathetic with these neighbors and I’m glad they finally have the services
they need and should never have gone without, the fact is that the rest of us
are now paying for the City’s mistake.
These neighbors were ready to pay, but instead, they got a freebie. And Cook is correct, my friends. There are many other properties like
this. What will the final tab for all
of us be if we do this for all of them?
The
item passed unanimously.
My Single Clap
Lisa Turner applauded the
City for two items: Continuing to
contract with an arborist that helps the City with its trees and an item
selling used City trucks to increase revenue.
She said that too often the focus is placed on contentious items and
that the public needs to be informed about good things that happen at the City
as well. I completely agree with her,
which is why I try to mention the good things that happen when they
happen. The only problem is, they
rarely happen under this administration.
And
that was that for this week’s meeting (kind of a boring one, I know).
In the News…
In case you missed it,
Anthony Cobos was part of a group of tax preparers who demanded that the County
stop helping people with their taxes for free: http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/borderland/20050131-17902.shtml
Cobos, who owns
“Flash Income Tax” in three very poor neighborhoods (http://newspapertree.com/view_article.sstg?c=1f0e4198d62147fa)
was obviously looking out for his pocketbook.
After all, because his business offers refund anticipation loans, he
depends on the poor. So, he’s gotta
make sure that those folks don’t have access to free services…he depends on
those poor folks so that he can line his own pockets off their hard-earned
money. I know he’s got the builders and
developers, but isn’t anyone else in his district embarrassed to be represented
by a predatory lender? I mean, come on
folks.
For those of you
unfamiliar with the kinds of loans granted by these flash income tax types, why
don’t you check out the article the El Paso
Times put together about it called, “Cash-strapped El Pasoans are drawn to
high-cost loans”:
http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/business/20050123-14784.shtml
In that article, you’ll see
that a staff attorney for the National Consumer Law Center calls these types of
loans “abusive.”
Yep. That’s Cobos all right.
Also in the news this week,
the El Paso Times ran a story on
Sunday trying to link all the new candidates to our former mayor. Why would the Times do that, some of my readers have asked me via email, and not
uncover the connections that currently tie several members of Council to their patrónes? Good question, folks. One
thing’s for sure. The Times isn’t interested in exposing true
corruption or cronyism, and it sure as heck doesn’t want to talk about
issues.
We should demand that the
focus remain on what these incumbents have actually done on Council and not
chase after phony issues. That’s the only
way we’ll know whom we can trust.
Until
next 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