Just to lighten the moment, I have been home day hours for two days. I had been up all night, does this happen to everybody? Every twenty minutes the phone is going off!
Couple of comments there, I will at least be polite to people but the recorded voice is telling me "This is an important call for" That's about far as that conversation goes; if it were an "important call" there would be a live human on the other end. I don't talk to machines.
Mr. Turner came close to pulling my last comment, and I would not have blamed him if he had. He runs this shop, I just write once in a while. It has been our policy not to endorse candidates.
I thought the election exceptional enough to break the rules. I should not have. We discussed and agreed on those rules for good reasons.
And just for fun, vehicles used to run into one another. What is this new thing about running into buildings?
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Elections
My last post, too long ago, I dodged endorsements. I had not met all candidates then.
The Standard-Times editorial committee reminds me why there is the old saying, "A camel is a horse designed by a committee".
Starting with SMD 1, Mr Aguirre seems to have that. Banskter has effectively withdrawn, Richardson is not really running and Fleming is about the only candidate I have not met at one of the many forums.
SMD2; the S-T endorsement of Self puzzles me. Yes, I am a long time friend of Jim Turner, but over the last 11-12 years, he has attended more Council meetings than a good number of elected Councilmen. His current knowledge of issues is way past anyone else's. I'm not bashful about speaking to Council when my day job allows it, but Turner could move from the comment podium to the dias seamlessly. I do not recall tripping over Mr. Self at many Council meetings. Turner and I do Capital Improvements meetings, budget meetings, if ANYONE reads that raw data dump the Council Agenda Packet has turned into, it's us. I know damned well Council doesn't read 300- 500 pages of mostly crap. Possible run-off here.
SMD4; Here I part with the Tea Party. Sally has been a consistent spokesperson for an under-represented segment of San Angelo voters. I do NOT see a pinko-leftist conspiracy, I do see people who have done a lot of good, especially in home building and renovations. Sally deserves a seat at the Table.
SMD5: Here I must disclose, I have been both friend and treasurer to Pratt. Her first effort a year ago, she was a rookie, seemed to think a fresh face would carry the day. Whole new world. She has a good grasp of issues, was the first candidate to mention Street Maintenance Sales tax, which other candidates seem to be jumping on like a starving chicken on a fat Junebug. Pratt is better prepared this year and asks advice when she does not know. Pratt is retired early, and it wasn't a Lotto ticket. She offers a 24/7 Councilmember. I see this as a likely runoff in a 4 way race.
SMD6: Two years ago, I think I surprised Farmer by commending her decision to run again. We had had some disagreements, but she competently represented her District by and large. This time I have to go with Don Barnhart. The Tea Party Forum, Farmer dropped the name of "Val Verde" as a possible water source. It had been agreed in Council Executive Session that no one mention that until negotiations were concluded. That mere mention might run up the price. Farmer is odds on favorite, but I have to go with Don.
Mayor: again for disclosure Dwain Morrison is a personal friend and I attend Church with him. He is not the "oldest rat in the Council Barn" for no reason. Dwain has consistently tried to defend the "little" guy against the city staff. Yes, he has often been the only dissenter, but I view it that he is trying to manage City money as carefully as he does his own. If we get fat on the oil boom, maybe we talk about a river fountain then. Meantime, I want good streets, good pipes, maybe even moving down in our property tax ratings statewide! What a concept. I have already voted for Dwain because he shares those basics. Might get a runoff here.
The turnout for early election has been, oh disssapointing would be an understatement. Now I chewed out Shoemaker for her DOJ election suit on details, BUT one point I totally agree with: Voters should vote in the same polling place in May as they vote in November. You have them jumping from one foot to the other every 6 months, it's hard enough to get 20% when voters knew where to vote. Of course the result has been to supress the vote!
If we are very lucky and a lot of voters stir off their buns, we might, I stress MIGHT see 10,000+ votes, about 20%, and that's 20% of registered voters, not the 95,000 residents.
I confess, I am a lifelong political junkie, and I don't expect all voters to be that wrapped up in an election.
Saturday is the deal. Last chance. Even if your candidate loses, voting is your license to bitch about it. You don't bother to vote, don't even tell me about it next year.
The Standard-Times editorial committee reminds me why there is the old saying, "A camel is a horse designed by a committee".
Starting with SMD 1, Mr Aguirre seems to have that. Banskter has effectively withdrawn, Richardson is not really running and Fleming is about the only candidate I have not met at one of the many forums.
SMD2; the S-T endorsement of Self puzzles me. Yes, I am a long time friend of Jim Turner, but over the last 11-12 years, he has attended more Council meetings than a good number of elected Councilmen. His current knowledge of issues is way past anyone else's. I'm not bashful about speaking to Council when my day job allows it, but Turner could move from the comment podium to the dias seamlessly. I do not recall tripping over Mr. Self at many Council meetings. Turner and I do Capital Improvements meetings, budget meetings, if ANYONE reads that raw data dump the Council Agenda Packet has turned into, it's us. I know damned well Council doesn't read 300- 500 pages of mostly crap. Possible run-off here.
SMD4; Here I part with the Tea Party. Sally has been a consistent spokesperson for an under-represented segment of San Angelo voters. I do NOT see a pinko-leftist conspiracy, I do see people who have done a lot of good, especially in home building and renovations. Sally deserves a seat at the Table.
SMD5: Here I must disclose, I have been both friend and treasurer to Pratt. Her first effort a year ago, she was a rookie, seemed to think a fresh face would carry the day. Whole new world. She has a good grasp of issues, was the first candidate to mention Street Maintenance Sales tax, which other candidates seem to be jumping on like a starving chicken on a fat Junebug. Pratt is better prepared this year and asks advice when she does not know. Pratt is retired early, and it wasn't a Lotto ticket. She offers a 24/7 Councilmember. I see this as a likely runoff in a 4 way race.
SMD6: Two years ago, I think I surprised Farmer by commending her decision to run again. We had had some disagreements, but she competently represented her District by and large. This time I have to go with Don Barnhart. The Tea Party Forum, Farmer dropped the name of "Val Verde" as a possible water source. It had been agreed in Council Executive Session that no one mention that until negotiations were concluded. That mere mention might run up the price. Farmer is odds on favorite, but I have to go with Don.
Mayor: again for disclosure Dwain Morrison is a personal friend and I attend Church with him. He is not the "oldest rat in the Council Barn" for no reason. Dwain has consistently tried to defend the "little" guy against the city staff. Yes, he has often been the only dissenter, but I view it that he is trying to manage City money as carefully as he does his own. If we get fat on the oil boom, maybe we talk about a river fountain then. Meantime, I want good streets, good pipes, maybe even moving down in our property tax ratings statewide! What a concept. I have already voted for Dwain because he shares those basics. Might get a runoff here.
The turnout for early election has been, oh disssapointing would be an understatement. Now I chewed out Shoemaker for her DOJ election suit on details, BUT one point I totally agree with: Voters should vote in the same polling place in May as they vote in November. You have them jumping from one foot to the other every 6 months, it's hard enough to get 20% when voters knew where to vote. Of course the result has been to supress the vote!
If we are very lucky and a lot of voters stir off their buns, we might, I stress MIGHT see 10,000+ votes, about 20%, and that's 20% of registered voters, not the 95,000 residents.
I confess, I am a lifelong political junkie, and I don't expect all voters to be that wrapped up in an election.
Saturday is the deal. Last chance. Even if your candidate loses, voting is your license to bitch about it. You don't bother to vote, don't even tell me about it next year.
Saturday, March 02, 2013
Sunday Ramble
First I guess has to be the upcoming elections. Rather interesting don't you think? we have 19 candidates for six of the seven seats on Council. Sunday the Standard-Times will finally put about that we have a School Board race, district 4, the first time since 2007 we have even had a contestant or an election. I want to thank every candidate. I know better than most the commitment of not only money but personal time running a race requires. I am one of the locals who will have only one vote, for Mayor, I live in Johnny Silvas' SMD3 and he simply continues in office.
At this time I withhold endorsements; well you might reasonably guess I support my friend Jim Turner; but aside from the obvious, I'm just happy to see well contested races all around. I hope the usual candidate forums come up with some way to accomodate the sheer numbers, give them each a chance to speak and take questions and not last until 2:00AM!
In a rare nod to government efficiency: I just recieved my first ever passport. Never needed one before, but I applied Feb. 9 and was told it would be 6-8 weeks. It came in the mail yesterday, call it 3 weeks, a pat on the back to the State Department.
Speaking of the mail. USPS is running unsupportable deficits and has announced it will drop Saturday regular delivery. It will not be enough. I gotta ask; if it came to it could you live with 3 day a week delivery? Now think, how much of your daily mail ends up in File 13, and how much regular mail is next-day critical? The Post Office is a critical binder. Constitution Article 1, Sec 8, right under counterfeiting, "to establish Post Offices and postal roads". I believe the very first Act of an American Congress was to fund this. It's one thing to talk about private competition, and that works well in populated areas, but what Congress had in mind was the remote farmer 10 miles outside East Undershirt Kentucky; he should be served as well. One of the few "subsidies" I support. I don't want to pay that farmer to grow or not grow corn, but I'll help get the letter from USDA telling him the corn check ain't coming in his mailbox. Then he'll know it's time to start moonshining his corn. That assumes he isn't already.
The first internal military action,1794, was to supress the "Whisky Rebellion", actually in western Pennsylvania, at the time the edge of the wilderness. A cash-strapped Congress had had the temerity to impose a tax on booze! An economic reality of the time, it was more efficient for farmers on the edge of the new nation to turn corn into ethanol and ship a couple barrels east than to sack up the raw corn and pay freight for several wagonloads. They were understandably honked off. It really didn't amount to much, a few shots fired here and there, and a revenooers house burned. Still unclear whether anyone was actually killed. In the face of 13,000 Federal militia, it did not take long for the frontiersmen to realize it was cheaper to melt away, and duck the revenooer on the black market than to go to war. What it did do was establish Federal authority. Today's world, you decide whether that was a good thing or not.
As to the moonshiner/revenoorer dispute, it was the great-great-great granddaddy of a sport we call NASCAR.
Just in case you think San Angelo streets are bad (OK, they are) you should read the original specs for a postal road. No stumps higher than 14 inches left between the ruts among others. Could be a challenge for a Humvee!
Enough for now, but Coming Attractions...I hope by then to have met more candidates and in the history part I will explain something you didn't learn in high school civics: The War of 1812, the only time we have been invaded by a foreign power, was in part over marijuana. OK, hemp, but..
At this time I withhold endorsements; well you might reasonably guess I support my friend Jim Turner; but aside from the obvious, I'm just happy to see well contested races all around. I hope the usual candidate forums come up with some way to accomodate the sheer numbers, give them each a chance to speak and take questions and not last until 2:00AM!
In a rare nod to government efficiency: I just recieved my first ever passport. Never needed one before, but I applied Feb. 9 and was told it would be 6-8 weeks. It came in the mail yesterday, call it 3 weeks, a pat on the back to the State Department.
Speaking of the mail. USPS is running unsupportable deficits and has announced it will drop Saturday regular delivery. It will not be enough. I gotta ask; if it came to it could you live with 3 day a week delivery? Now think, how much of your daily mail ends up in File 13, and how much regular mail is next-day critical? The Post Office is a critical binder. Constitution Article 1, Sec 8, right under counterfeiting, "to establish Post Offices and postal roads". I believe the very first Act of an American Congress was to fund this. It's one thing to talk about private competition, and that works well in populated areas, but what Congress had in mind was the remote farmer 10 miles outside East Undershirt Kentucky; he should be served as well. One of the few "subsidies" I support. I don't want to pay that farmer to grow or not grow corn, but I'll help get the letter from USDA telling him the corn check ain't coming in his mailbox. Then he'll know it's time to start moonshining his corn. That assumes he isn't already.
The first internal military action,1794, was to supress the "Whisky Rebellion", actually in western Pennsylvania, at the time the edge of the wilderness. A cash-strapped Congress had had the temerity to impose a tax on booze! An economic reality of the time, it was more efficient for farmers on the edge of the new nation to turn corn into ethanol and ship a couple barrels east than to sack up the raw corn and pay freight for several wagonloads. They were understandably honked off. It really didn't amount to much, a few shots fired here and there, and a revenooers house burned. Still unclear whether anyone was actually killed. In the face of 13,000 Federal militia, it did not take long for the frontiersmen to realize it was cheaper to melt away, and duck the revenooer on the black market than to go to war. What it did do was establish Federal authority. Today's world, you decide whether that was a good thing or not.
As to the moonshiner/revenoorer dispute, it was the great-great-great granddaddy of a sport we call NASCAR.
Just in case you think San Angelo streets are bad (OK, they are) you should read the original specs for a postal road. No stumps higher than 14 inches left between the ruts among others. Could be a challenge for a Humvee!
Enough for now, but Coming Attractions...I hope by then to have met more candidates and in the history part I will explain something you didn't learn in high school civics: The War of 1812, the only time we have been invaded by a foreign power, was in part over marijuana. OK, hemp, but..
Sunday, January 13, 2013
A Very New Year
We are at the beginning of a brand new year and it promises to be very different. We will end up with a new Mayor and we might just have a real election in the process. Councilman Morrison is going to run for Mayor, which means someone else will have to fill the SMD 2 seat. I will be running for that seat. This blog will still be active, and I will be posting on issues from time to time but in keeping with our policy of focusing on issues not candidates I will not be using this blog for my campaign. I will set up a separate website/blog for that purpose. This blog will not endorse candidates, even me, for office. ConchoInfo will be a part of the election because the reality is my platform and issues and reasons for running have been stated on this site since 2004. What I campaign on will include what I've been saying here from the beginning. That won't change.
This will be an exciting, eventful year and the upcoming elections promises to be very important for the future of our city. Change is in the air.
A side note to Buffalo. I didn't approve your last comment yet because I thought you might want to publish it here after a little tweaking and editing. This is where it would be the most appropriate and on topic. Let me know if you want it here or there.
Again, this promises to be an interesting and exciting new year. Have a great one.
Jim Turner
This will be an exciting, eventful year and the upcoming elections promises to be very important for the future of our city. Change is in the air.
A side note to Buffalo. I didn't approve your last comment yet because I thought you might want to publish it here after a little tweaking and editing. This is where it would be the most appropriate and on topic. Let me know if you want it here or there.
Again, this promises to be an interesting and exciting new year. Have a great one.
Jim Turner
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Tangled Web(site)
Council meetings are usually entertaining and last Tuesday's was no exception. Sat through the morning show and left during the intermission (executive session and lunch break.) Didn't make it back before the afternoon show had started and I missed one of the most entertaining parts. An issue that I really have issues with: the City website.
The contract for the current city website was approved back in 2004. The current site is based on a proprietary system from GovOffice.com. It took a while for the site to get usable and I have several emails back and forth with city staff on problems and suggestions. Today, 8 years later there are still problems with features such as credit card information handling and keeping the agenda packets on the website. Public information staff has done a lot of work like connecting the city website with social media sites like facebook and twitter and work arounds like using slideshare to hold city council packets and information that won't fit on the website. City staff has done a lot of work to get information out and overcome the limits of the current website. I've also heard from staff members that use the system that it's a royal pain to deal with. I'd heard and seen enough problems with the site that I have been trying to get the city to change system and philosophies for several years. Earlier this year the city finally went out with an RFP for a new website.
In May, they came to council with a request to authorize a contract, not to exceed $40,000 to Vision Internet of California. From the memo in the agenda packet "Financial Impact: The costs for the website design, hosting, and training staff will be $40,000.00." A bit high but not totally unexpected. I remember this being presented to the city council as a complete, turnkey operation. Vision Internet would design and maintain the site, migrate everything from the old site to the new one, train staff to operate it, and host it on their own high availability servers. City council approved the following from the memo in the agenda packet.
The contract for the current city website was approved back in 2004. The current site is based on a proprietary system from GovOffice.com. It took a while for the site to get usable and I have several emails back and forth with city staff on problems and suggestions. Today, 8 years later there are still problems with features such as credit card information handling and keeping the agenda packets on the website. Public information staff has done a lot of work like connecting the city website with social media sites like facebook and twitter and work arounds like using slideshare to hold city council packets and information that won't fit on the website. City staff has done a lot of work to get information out and overcome the limits of the current website. I've also heard from staff members that use the system that it's a royal pain to deal with. I'd heard and seen enough problems with the site that I have been trying to get the city to change system and philosophies for several years. Earlier this year the city finally went out with an RFP for a new website.
In May, they came to council with a request to authorize a contract, not to exceed $40,000 to Vision Internet of California. From the memo in the agenda packet "Financial Impact: The costs for the website design, hosting, and training staff will be $40,000.00." A bit high but not totally unexpected. I remember this being presented to the city council as a complete, turnkey operation. Vision Internet would design and maintain the site, migrate everything from the old site to the new one, train staff to operate it, and host it on their own high availability servers. City council approved the following from the memo in the agenda packet.
- "a. Approving a recommendation from the Evaluation Team to award RFP: PI-01-
11/Website Design contract to Vision Internet, in an amount not to exceed $40,000.00
for design of a new, custom website for the City of San Angelo, and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with the recommended vendor - b. Authorizing a budget amendment for the project funds in an amount not to exceed
$40,000.00 to cover costs of designing the new website, training staff, and hosting the
newly designed site."
This highlights two problems our new city manager must deal with. First, staff has developed a habit of bringing parts of projects to city council piece meal and without complete project information. This time they tried to say that what was approved in May was just a portion of the total project and it was only last Tuesday they were providing information on the rest of the project. Earlier in meeting a similar situation happened on an agreement with SAPAC. The rental/lease agreement for office space was brought forward as an isolated, stand alone item. There have been some concerns about this agreement expressed at prior council meetings, and without some big picture information on the entire auditorium/city hall renovation project and SAPAC's involvement and contribution commitments it's hard to make a good decision. As presented to the council Tuesday the agreement does look and smell like a giveaway of a major city asset to a politically connected group. Add to that the cost overruns and confusion over whether or not the HVAC plant and landscaping were included in the original package voted on as part of the city hall plaza project and it's easy see how council might be getting a bit irritable. I'm sure they feel like they would if they were buying a new car and as the sales manager is handing the keys he says "Congratulation on your new car. I think now we might want to talk about putting tires on it."
Now that I've wandered into mistakes made in handling the website contract so far, let me make a couple of suggestions. There needs to be a shift in philosophy by the city about the internet. Functionally, the city doesn't have "a" website. The main sanangelotexas.us address is effectively a portal into a series of other internet applications and sites. I could get long winded on this (actually did but erased it) but the city doesn't need a Swiss Army Knife type of website. What the city needs is a functional toolbox that allows people to exchange information and do business using those internet tools, and visible website is really just the box that keeps all these specialized tools where they can be used efficiently and effectively. This needs to be an open standards based toolbox so that as new tools are needed and developed we don't have to keep going back to a single source and hope they have an adequate tool.
Let's get ASU and their computer science department involved. They have expertise and equipment. They might be interested in doing the city's internet projects as a research and training vehicle.
Get the city involved with projects like Code For America and see what they can surprise us with.
Go with an open solution, preferably open source, that can help drive down the cost of government and give us greater flexibility to respond quickly in a fast changing world.
We need a new website for the City of San Angelo. We need an updated philosophy on how the city and its citizens use the internet. We need an honest, accurate, and complete plan for the projects that will get us where we need to be long term. What was put before council would barely serve us today and is not what we need for the future. We also need to get staff to keep up and do their homework before they come before city council and keep their story complete and straight.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Daniel in the Lyin Den or Welcome to our new City Manager
Our new City Manager has been here not quite a month, made it through two city council meetings and hasn't snuck back to Eagle Pass yet. He hasn't said much and seems to be taking it all in waiting until he knows the local landscape. I hope that's a sign of good things and that he is just waiting for the right time because there are some major issues he has to deal with.
I'm sure he knew that water would be a major issue when he got here. Bet he thought that reliable water sources would be his number one challenge. Instead we seem to have a number of very public failures with the water department at the center. At Mr. Valenzuela's very first council meeting they tried to sneak by $100,000 for new furniture for the water department. This is in addition to the $200,000 already spent on top of what was budgeted for the city hall renovation. And it doesn't appear that this furniture was to make up for a shortfall of partitions and filing cabinets and a few needed desks. It was a major wholesale replacement with the old furniture, which was obviously still serviceable, spread hither and yon with no accountability throughout other city departments to make up for shortfalls in other offices. Sounds very much to me like staff underestimated their furniture needs several times, and the last time tried to pull a fast one with the water department paying the bill this time. On top of that, required procurement procedures were mostly ignored. This high dollar purchase went forward without required council approval and like kids on a playground, no senior staff personnel saw what happened. We still don't know who signed the purchase order or if it was ever signed. Nice start for your first council meeting wasn't it Daniel?
By the second meeting things were getting even more interesting. Seems there was (maybe still is) a problem with water quality. It's bad that they found the THM levels in our water too high, although the actual health threat is probably not that great. What's more disturbing to me is that it was outside testing that found the problem, not our own testing procedures. The problem sample was from several months ago and just recently were corrective actions taken. Add on the fact that our temporary use of chlorine instead of chloramine probably made the problem worse and we don't really know what affect it had makes me wonder just how good our in-house testing really is. Needs to be looked at closely.
A bit of a side show to the last council meeting, still tied to the water department, is just starting to surface. Seems that an engineer on city staff was relieved for cause with no option for rehire and after a bit of slight of hand to become a private company/subcontractor was back at work as an inspector on the Hickory Pipeline, the city's main long range water project. Doesn't help that the subcontractor is the son of the water department director. Sounds like a problem of ethics and a conflict of interest that needs to be addressed.
As a long term accompaniment to all this there are problems with water bills which start with the new remote reading water meters. There were a lot of advantages claimed for the remote meters including more efficient and accurate results and near real time water usage readings that could alert a customer to potential leaks or other unusual usage patterns. Looking at how well this had worked in other cities (most of which used private contractors to make the switch) we had high hopes that this would be good for our city. Instead we have heard a fairly constant drumbeat of complaints and excuses. In 2005 the city had a chance to get a remote meter system installed for free by Siemens. Their profit, if any, would have come out of operational savings. They would have been on the hook to make the system work right. Instead our water department has been before the city council asking for big bucks to do the whole project in house. They currently have 2 or 3 years left on the projects and the results so far have been a mixture of confusion, unrealistic water bills, rate increases, excuses and terrible customer service. The much mentioned capability of flagging usage problems doesn't seem to exist yet. Many current bills seem to be "estimates." The transition from an old meter to a new one frequently leads to a usage spike that makes one believe that either meters hadn't been read for a while or that nobody noticed that the meter had been replaced so a new starting reading should have been used instead of the last reading from the old meter. What ever the cause, our citizens and water customers are not being treated right and there are systemic problems that need to be fixed.
Which brings me to another big issue. One that hurts our economic growth and prosperity. Our city government does a lousy job at customer service. The problems in water billing are making news. Look at what happens in planning, permitting, code enforcement and inspections. I've been told that the process is like being in a pinball machine, being bounced around from desk to desk and department to department. Getting close to the end of the process only to be flipped back to another round of bouncing off desks. A process that takes one to maybe two weeks in other cities in the region takes months here. And I frequently hear that projects will almost get completed and an inspector will come out and change the rules. The plans for a roof or a wall that were approved by everyone in city hall before the project even started will get changed at the last minute by some inspector in the field which causes major added expenses and delays. Cheaper to make the changes (even major ones) then to delay business too long and pay a bunch of money to lawyers. Word of this spreads around and keeps business away. And some within city hall will say that used to happen in the past but we have changed. All I can say is what I'm hearing about are recent incidents. The Friday meeting results don't seem to be filtering down to the people on the desks and in the field.
I have been rambling on a bit here and still have only brushed on some of the high points so let me finish by saying again Welcome Daniel. Enjoy your time here in San Angelo. I hope you brought your Kevlar. You just might need it.
I'm sure he knew that water would be a major issue when he got here. Bet he thought that reliable water sources would be his number one challenge. Instead we seem to have a number of very public failures with the water department at the center. At Mr. Valenzuela's very first council meeting they tried to sneak by $100,000 for new furniture for the water department. This is in addition to the $200,000 already spent on top of what was budgeted for the city hall renovation. And it doesn't appear that this furniture was to make up for a shortfall of partitions and filing cabinets and a few needed desks. It was a major wholesale replacement with the old furniture, which was obviously still serviceable, spread hither and yon with no accountability throughout other city departments to make up for shortfalls in other offices. Sounds very much to me like staff underestimated their furniture needs several times, and the last time tried to pull a fast one with the water department paying the bill this time. On top of that, required procurement procedures were mostly ignored. This high dollar purchase went forward without required council approval and like kids on a playground, no senior staff personnel saw what happened. We still don't know who signed the purchase order or if it was ever signed. Nice start for your first council meeting wasn't it Daniel?
By the second meeting things were getting even more interesting. Seems there was (maybe still is) a problem with water quality. It's bad that they found the THM levels in our water too high, although the actual health threat is probably not that great. What's more disturbing to me is that it was outside testing that found the problem, not our own testing procedures. The problem sample was from several months ago and just recently were corrective actions taken. Add on the fact that our temporary use of chlorine instead of chloramine probably made the problem worse and we don't really know what affect it had makes me wonder just how good our in-house testing really is. Needs to be looked at closely.
A bit of a side show to the last council meeting, still tied to the water department, is just starting to surface. Seems that an engineer on city staff was relieved for cause with no option for rehire and after a bit of slight of hand to become a private company/subcontractor was back at work as an inspector on the Hickory Pipeline, the city's main long range water project. Doesn't help that the subcontractor is the son of the water department director. Sounds like a problem of ethics and a conflict of interest that needs to be addressed.
As a long term accompaniment to all this there are problems with water bills which start with the new remote reading water meters. There were a lot of advantages claimed for the remote meters including more efficient and accurate results and near real time water usage readings that could alert a customer to potential leaks or other unusual usage patterns. Looking at how well this had worked in other cities (most of which used private contractors to make the switch) we had high hopes that this would be good for our city. Instead we have heard a fairly constant drumbeat of complaints and excuses. In 2005 the city had a chance to get a remote meter system installed for free by Siemens. Their profit, if any, would have come out of operational savings. They would have been on the hook to make the system work right. Instead our water department has been before the city council asking for big bucks to do the whole project in house. They currently have 2 or 3 years left on the projects and the results so far have been a mixture of confusion, unrealistic water bills, rate increases, excuses and terrible customer service. The much mentioned capability of flagging usage problems doesn't seem to exist yet. Many current bills seem to be "estimates." The transition from an old meter to a new one frequently leads to a usage spike that makes one believe that either meters hadn't been read for a while or that nobody noticed that the meter had been replaced so a new starting reading should have been used instead of the last reading from the old meter. What ever the cause, our citizens and water customers are not being treated right and there are systemic problems that need to be fixed.
Which brings me to another big issue. One that hurts our economic growth and prosperity. Our city government does a lousy job at customer service. The problems in water billing are making news. Look at what happens in planning, permitting, code enforcement and inspections. I've been told that the process is like being in a pinball machine, being bounced around from desk to desk and department to department. Getting close to the end of the process only to be flipped back to another round of bouncing off desks. A process that takes one to maybe two weeks in other cities in the region takes months here. And I frequently hear that projects will almost get completed and an inspector will come out and change the rules. The plans for a roof or a wall that were approved by everyone in city hall before the project even started will get changed at the last minute by some inspector in the field which causes major added expenses and delays. Cheaper to make the changes (even major ones) then to delay business too long and pay a bunch of money to lawyers. Word of this spreads around and keeps business away. And some within city hall will say that used to happen in the past but we have changed. All I can say is what I'm hearing about are recent incidents. The Friday meeting results don't seem to be filtering down to the people on the desks and in the field.
I have been rambling on a bit here and still have only brushed on some of the high points so let me finish by saying again Welcome Daniel. Enjoy your time here in San Angelo. I hope you brought your Kevlar. You just might need it.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Trash talk
Been a while since we posted here. Time to get back to work. Going to start off with excerpts from an email we received on the pilot program on automated trash collection.
First off, here are some key facts that are not widely known that our email writer thought were important.
1. The cans must be aligned precisely with the curb, or they will not be picked up.
2. The approach to the cans must not be blocked, or they will not be picked up.
3. you must use the cans provided by the trash company, no other cans will be picked up.
4. you will be charged a monthly "rental" of $12-15 for your can, in perpetuity, you will never pay it off, and the city keeps the profit from the fees, not the trash company. (this one really ***** me off)
Our writer goes on to say: " now in (my neighborhood) there is currently a pilot program with the automated system. The automated truck drives down the street, and picks up the cans. If there is a obstruction or the can is not aligned properly, a assistant hops out and fixes the issue, moves the can, etc.. Further, a regular trash truck FOLLOWS the automated truck, picking up odd-sized garbage, leaves, branches, etc, that does not get picked up by the automated truck. The kicker is that when the program is implemented, there will be NO ASSISTANT to the automated truck (IE there will be skipped cans) and obviously no truck following behind to pick up the leftover trash. this factor has not been announced to the general public, and the city plans to just spring it on everybody when the automated system is in place."
I think our writer is legitimately concerned. Two things stand out. First, even though this will likely save the collection company and the city a considerable amount of money, there could be a net INCREASE in your trash collection bill for the "rental" of the special trash cans. As a consumer my total bill is what matters. It does me no good that my "trash collection" bill is lower if I have to pay more for a "rental fee." This is no good for me unless my ENTIRE bill is less.
The next point that stands out is that the pilot test, as the writer reports, is not currently being done the same way it would be implemented. I can understand them gradually shifting from the current system to the fully automated system. By now, they should have made all the pilot projects as close as possible to the way they will be if and when implemented. We need several weeks, at least, of collections where there are not extra hands or trucks following on. We, the citizens of San Angelo and the people who pay for this service, need to see in these pilot projects exactly what it will be like in the future. No smoke and mirrors. No additional fine print and "adjustments" after the deal is done. I'm not saying that Trashaway and the City Council won't do that but I've watched local politics long enough to know that we, the people, need to make sure it's done.
First off, here are some key facts that are not widely known that our email writer thought were important.
1. The cans must be aligned precisely with the curb, or they will not be picked up.
2. The approach to the cans must not be blocked, or they will not be picked up.
3. you must use the cans provided by the trash company, no other cans will be picked up.
4. you will be charged a monthly "rental" of $12-15 for your can, in perpetuity, you will never pay it off, and the city keeps the profit from the fees, not the trash company. (this one really ***** me off)
Our writer goes on to say: " now in (my neighborhood) there is currently a pilot program with the automated system. The automated truck drives down the street, and picks up the cans. If there is a obstruction or the can is not aligned properly, a assistant hops out and fixes the issue, moves the can, etc.. Further, a regular trash truck FOLLOWS the automated truck, picking up odd-sized garbage, leaves, branches, etc, that does not get picked up by the automated truck. The kicker is that when the program is implemented, there will be NO ASSISTANT to the automated truck (IE there will be skipped cans) and obviously no truck following behind to pick up the leftover trash. this factor has not been announced to the general public, and the city plans to just spring it on everybody when the automated system is in place."
I think our writer is legitimately concerned. Two things stand out. First, even though this will likely save the collection company and the city a considerable amount of money, there could be a net INCREASE in your trash collection bill for the "rental" of the special trash cans. As a consumer my total bill is what matters. It does me no good that my "trash collection" bill is lower if I have to pay more for a "rental fee." This is no good for me unless my ENTIRE bill is less.
The next point that stands out is that the pilot test, as the writer reports, is not currently being done the same way it would be implemented. I can understand them gradually shifting from the current system to the fully automated system. By now, they should have made all the pilot projects as close as possible to the way they will be if and when implemented. We need several weeks, at least, of collections where there are not extra hands or trucks following on. We, the citizens of San Angelo and the people who pay for this service, need to see in these pilot projects exactly what it will be like in the future. No smoke and mirrors. No additional fine print and "adjustments" after the deal is done. I'm not saying that Trashaway and the City Council won't do that but I've watched local politics long enough to know that we, the people, need to make sure it's done.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
A long run
Conchoinfo.org has been online for quite a while. On August 7th it will be 8 years since conchoinfo.org started life as the website against the first extension of the 4B, 1/2 cent sales tax. In December of 2004 Conchoinfo was rebuilt and redirected towards a more informational and local issue oriented focus. We've achieved some successes and had some failures. We've had an impact. This August the domain name and hosting contract for conchoinfo.org is up for renewal again. It's not a major expense but it's a personal expense shared among a very few contributors. I'm wondering if I should keep the domain name and site up or just let it go.
Even if we let the domain name lapse, the blog will still be here. We have had a little presence on facebook but I'm thinking of taking that down. A lot of the other ideas I had for conchoinfo have never had enough time, money, people, or other resources to come about. It's never become the information resource I hoped for and can't unless things change. Conchoinfo.org is at a real crossroads. It either needs to grow, which I don't have the time, resources, etc. to do on my own, or it needs to just fade away to become just another footnote in history and a few entries in the archive.org wayback machine. I will probably pay for another year of the domain name and hosting but unless something changes this will be the last year for the domain. ConchoInfo.org. There's not enough me (and a few others) to do it anymore.
The blog will stay here. Blogger hosting is free. I might still get worked up enough to do some posting and we can be sure Barkeep (Jim Ryan) will. That's not enough.
Ideas and feedback wanted
Jim Turner
webmaster@conchoinfo.org
Even if we let the domain name lapse, the blog will still be here. We have had a little presence on facebook but I'm thinking of taking that down. A lot of the other ideas I had for conchoinfo have never had enough time, money, people, or other resources to come about. It's never become the information resource I hoped for and can't unless things change. Conchoinfo.org is at a real crossroads. It either needs to grow, which I don't have the time, resources, etc. to do on my own, or it needs to just fade away to become just another footnote in history and a few entries in the archive.org wayback machine. I will probably pay for another year of the domain name and hosting but unless something changes this will be the last year for the domain. ConchoInfo.org. There's not enough me (and a few others) to do it anymore.
The blog will stay here. Blogger hosting is free. I might still get worked up enough to do some posting and we can be sure Barkeep (Jim Ryan) will. That's not enough.
Ideas and feedback wanted
Jim Turner
webmaster@conchoinfo.org
Monday, July 16, 2012
Control Yourself
The June 19th council
meeting was interesting and entertaining. Some council members were
offended that people were saying that the lawn parking nuisance
ordinance was really all about control. I can understand why they got
upset. In their heart and mind their motives were pure. They were
striving mightily to protect local property values and control was
the furthest thing from their minds. And they were right, but that
isn't the complete picture. Let's take a step down from the council
platform and into the ground level where the rest of the citizens,
the political observers, and I sit and watch and participate in this
whole government process.
At its most fundamental governments at
all levels are about control. They may call it laws or ordinances or
regulation and use fees and taxes and people with guns for
enforcement but governments work by controlling certain types of
behavior. They protect rights by trying to control those that would
infringe them. Governments don't really build things. They don't grow
things. They manage the shared resources of communities which is
another way of saying they control things. So at a very fundamental
level being in government is about control. It's why they were
created. It's what they do. If you're in government, controlling is a
major part of what you do.
By now the offended council members are
likely thinking “That may be true but that's not why we are looking
at lawn parking. True, we are trying to control a nuisance but our
goal, our motivation is to protect property values and property
owners investments.” Fair enough. So lets look at this whole lawn
parking thing from down at the citizen level.
This ordinance is supposed to be about
protecting property values and investments. That's a common problem
so I did what I usually do and looked at how other cities are dealing
with issue. Many cities, in fact most that I looked at, ignore
parking on lawns. They leave it up to Home Owners Associations and
deed restrictions and neighbors working with neighbors to deal with
issues such as cars in the yard and ugly landscaping and paint jobs.
Other cities, like Abilene declare “Vehicles in the yard of any
residence excluding improved parking surfaces, or areas screened from
the public view by an opaque fence” a nuisance. No exceptions.
These policies apply to all residences on all streets. No exceptions.
There are cities that leave it up to the neighborhood. They have an
opt-in mechanism. Get 75% or 80% of the residences on a block or in a
neighborhood to petition city hall and your neighborhood will have
car free lawns. You and your neighborhood decides, not city hall.
Lets compare that with what our city council is looking at.
The proposed ordinance starts out
protecting property values by not allowing parking on unimproved
surfaces. Then it goes on to add 7 exceptions to this “protection”.
The city won't protect your property value if your street is 36' or
narrower. No protection if the vehicle has a handicapped plate or
mirror hanger. Three exceptions if your neighbors house doesn't have
an "improved surface" to park on. In the end, code enforcement will have to have a 100'
tape measure, a square or protractor, and probably a copy of the
thoroughfare plan to determine whether or not they can write a
citation to protect your property values from the nuisances caused by
your neighbors. The ordinance as proposed shows an attempt at a fine
grained control which in the end protects newer neighborhoods with wide streets
while leaving older neighborhoods with narrow streets and dirt
parking areas to fend for themselves. And it will still cause unnecessary
expenses for residences with a one car curb cut and two car wide
compacted dirt parking areas. In the end this ordinance creates a two
tier level of “protection.” It will protect and increase the value of protected residences while likely hurting the values of those homes left unprotected. Those citizens who spoke in favor of
this ordinance last time need to go check their properties closely.
That investment property just might not be protected. Those new homes
in the targeted neighborhoods? How wide are those streets again? They
just might not be protected as well. Real estate investors? Don't
bother looking on these streets. The city doesn't protect the values
there. Maybe the property and investment values of all the houses with exceptions will not only not be protected, their values will be damaged as an unintended consequence.
Sitting down here in the peanut gallery
it's easy to get confused when the protection is applied unevenly but
the control is applied across the entire city. It's really no wonder
that many people would think that it's really not about protecting the value of some residences,
it's about control.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Revving up Revenue
I almost skipped the recent budget workshop. They are normally boring with few surprises. Still, I haven't missed one in several years and old habits are hard to break. I'm glad I went.
Staff is digging hard to find new revenue sources. Three of them really caught my eye. I've already blogged about the proposed use of water and sewer capital fund money to fix roads. To summarize I still think that the money you pay on your water and sewer bill should go towards those services, not fixing roads. There are two other revenue proposals that really stood out and need to be addressed.
I found it hard to believe they suggested bringing back parking meters. They estimated that after all the expenses of installation, etc. they could still bring in $340k for the first year of operation. That's assuming anyone still bothers to shop downtown after they install parking meters again. Parking meters helped kill off downtown’s across the country. Why pay to park and shop when at the mall or big box store you can park for free? There would be sometimes when you have to go downtown for example business at city hall, but this would discourage people from shopping or eating downtown. We're spending truck loads of time and money trying to revitalize downtown and then discourage people from doing business there by installing parking meters. Seems a bit silly to me.
The next revenue source they suggested was red light cameras. They suggested that they would bring in $100,000 per year. There is so much wrong with this proposal it's hard to know where to begin. First off, red light cameras in Texas are governed by chapter 707.003 of the Transportation code. This sets a limit of $75 on the civil penalty that can be charged and a max $25 for a late charge. It also requires that 50% of the money collected and left over from the expenses of installing, maintaining, and operating the system and collecting the penalties be paid to the credit of the regional trauma account. That means after the system had collected enough to start getting revenue, they would have to issue 2,666 notices of civil penalties to collect $100,000. That's a lot of red light tickets. Then you run into the little problem of chapter 707.008(2) which says “(2) deposit the remainder of the revenue in a special account in the local authority's treasury that may be used only to fund traffic safety programs, including pedestrian safety programs, public safety programs, intersection improvements, and traffic enforcement.” Kind of limits what you can use the red light camera money for. It's no longer the general revenue source it was when this issue was first brought before council in 2007 and the money wouldn't be useable for very many projects the city needs to be doing. There is also a lot of red tape involved including the requirement to establish a citizens committee on the cameras, the need for a full engineering study before installation and annual reports to the state. The money certainly can't be used to fix streets or other urgent capital projects. It seems that staff really didn't do their homework on red light cameras.
At the end of the budget workshop I had to wonder why these three possible revenue sources were even mentioned. They all have serious flaws. Surprises like this are why I try to make all council meetings. Still, I expected better from staff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)