The group whose initiative petition regarding the operation of the storm water utility was certified Friday is willing to negotiate with the city in the next month about the wording of a measure must go to City Council for approval in the next month.
But Lee Urias, one of the leaders of Concerned Taxpayers of El Paso, said if that doesn’t happen, his group will start a second petition drive to put an initiative on the ballot that will take effect, word for word, if voters approve it in the May city elections.
“We support a stormwater utility, but we want it to run economically, and we want it to run correctly,” Urias said. “Mostly what we want is accountability.
"We’re willing to negotiate, but before they weren’t, and that’s why we went for jugular. Why? Because the city wouldn’t negotiate.”
While the PSB has approved two major rate reductions since starting the stormwater utility in March, the reductions have largely helped homeowners, schools and nonprofits, but have not reduced commercial rates enough to satisfy some, if not many businesses.
The petition Urias’ group submitted last month with more than 2,400 signatures of registered voters, was the first initiative to be certified as having enough valid signatures in the city’s history. The group needed 2,022 signatures to force City Council to consider its ordinance.
If the members of Concerned Taxpayers aren’t satisfied with whatever action City Council takes, including the passage of a similar but unacceptable ordinance addressing the stormwater utility, the group can mount a second petition drive to have voters approve the proposed ordinance.
Mayor John Cook said a highly publicized and likely successful petition drive that puts a controversial stormwater proposition on the May ballot is just about the last thing he wants to see.
If the measure goes to voters as it is worded in the petition, Cook agreed, the stormwater utility issue would alter the election and perhaps become the biggest issue in the race of those seeking re-election and their challengers.
Last year, City Council approved the establishment of a stormwater utility and delegated its operation to the El Paso Water Utilities’ Public Service Board which, as of March 1, began operating it as a second utility.
The ordinance proposed by Concerned Taxpayers and recited on the petitions people signed would simply redesignate City Council as the board that “will retain complete authority and control over the stormwater utility system.”
Cook said he is meeting with the city’s Legal Department to discuss whether state law allows a city to operate a utility using City Council as the board.
“That was one of the reasons we put it as the PSB,” Cook said. “They have the governing ability and better expertise in maintaining pump stations and things to do with waste water.”
Cook, who plans to run for a second term, said the stormwater utility is “definitely my Achilles heel, my big weakness.”
“My advisers told me to just back off the issue because it could cost me re-election,” Cook said. “I said I couldn’t. It’s the right thing to do. If it costs me my re-election, so be it.
“I think it’s about time leadership stopped doing what was popular and making it right instead of doing what is right and making it popular.”
***
To reach David Crowder, write to dcrowder@epmediagroup.com
















PINCHIMOJADO
November 17, 2008
good article, this petition may be historical. i think you should do research. i think you should look into this. has a petition ever been certified? good job to the ones who helped all of us small businesses with large lots. you definitely beat the times out on this one.
Saul
November 17, 2008
The city ran the stormwater utility since its inception. Did they do a good job? Was there accountability? Because the answers to those questions are NO, the city itself recommended that someone else do the job. So... the question remains, do you want an improved stormwater system or not? If the answer is that you're satisfied with what we've got, then give the authority back to the city. They will continue to do nothing and mismanage the system. I'm not too concerned about major flooding but I do care that the city NEVER cleaned the storm drains or channels. Now they're clean and I don't have trash (years and years of weeds, plastic bags, silt and a few tires) in the nearby storm channel as the view from my back yard.
Just My Opinion
November 17, 2008
In my opinion, the petition regarding the management/operation of the Storm Water Utility was necessary, since individuals who have had oversight responsibility in the past have failed to properly protect the citizen of El Paso.
The real question is not what we will do with funds collected for Storm Water initiatives but what is causing our problems. What caused the major breakdown of our water drainage system (waterways from the Mountain via arroyos), is that our leaders (past and current) have failed to hold developers accountable. If a developer wants to build in an "arroyo," they should build the required drainage systems to insure proper flow of rain through what was a previous water flow way. To simply close off an arroyo and build on it without constructing the necessary infrastructure to allow the rain to flow as it used to, is irresponsiblity at its best.
When you look at the damage the Storms of 2006 produced to Silver Springs, Shadow Mountain, Thunderbird, Mesa, etc... you only need to go up the mountain to see how developers were allowed to close off and build on arroyos.
Want to see the next mayor catastrophy? Simply drive down Mesa to the segment between Festival and Castellano. The leveling of the area south on Mesa and the failure to construct proper drainage for the rain water that is coming down the mountain, is sure to create your next chaotic situation at the next serious rainfall.
Perhaps a second petition is required to create proper oversight of the individuals giving developers the right to build on Arroyos.....
David K
November 17, 2008
This petition and the people who are behind the petition are only looking to shift the entire tax burden of the proper care of the stormwater system to HOMEOWNERS!
If you think this is about anything else, you're a moron - plain and simple.
concerend
November 17, 2008
who is building in that section right now and whose district is it in. i noticed that myself this morning driving to work. i wondered where the water off the mountain was gonna go also.
El Paso Reporter
November 17, 2008
This is basic economics 101.. City creates ridicules storm water tax for businesses. Businesses are unable to absorb sinister tax. Businesses have to pass burden on to consumer. Consumer is You!! EL PASO WAKE UP AND SEE WHAT THE MAYOR, SUSIE BYRD, JOYCE WILSON AND DARTH VADER ( ED ARCHULETA) ARE DOING TO THE ECONOMY IN EL PASO!! Oh, did I mention that Ed Archuleta’s salary is a half million dollars a year with a half million dollar golden parachute? Guess who pays for that?? YOU!!
Jenny
November 17, 2008
Complaining about building in arroyos and the developers, etc., is fine and dandy but that is in the past. It's done, over with. What are we going to do going forward??? Are we going to demand that developers leave the arroyos as is? Are we going to fix existing problems? Do you think the City (who has mismanaged the entire thing for years -- from poor planning, giving in to builders and developers, to failing to even keep the storm drains clear of debris) is going to suddenly do an about face and change their behavior?
And I totally agree with David K. Any reduction of fees to businesses means the homeowners will pay more. I have no sympathy for the car dealers. They whine as much as the home builders -- and probably make more money.
PLEASE READ
November 18, 2008
This issue affects everyone in El Paso!! The media never reports the whole story. There was never proper planning done to create a stormwater utility, there still is no master plan. Fees are being collected from El Pasoens only to hire high price public information officers and advertising to calm the backlash from the community. The city has had in there budget 6 million dollars for stormwater projects when the new utility was created and a fee structure set by PSB, the city kept the 6 million they collected from us. Joyce Wilson is taking credit for no tax increase this year. But, she forgot to tell you she kept the six million in the city budget and let the PSB come a with a ridicules fees for everyone in El Paso. Right there, every one is paying twice. The plan from Joyce Wilson and the PSB was to let the business handle 80% of the burden. They are not smart enough to realize that most of the small business are not able to handle the extra burden without raising there prices to the consumer. The consumer is YOU! So, now you are paying a third time. So, if you want a stormwater utility, I can guarantee you don’t want this stormwater utility.
hellraizer
November 18, 2008
david k your an idiot. most of us small business only want everyone to pay what other cities pay. check the arlington rates and austin,mn.
http://www.ci.arlington.tx.us/publicworks/pdf/drainage_FAQs.pdf
http://www.ci.austin.mn.us/Engineering/PDF/Storm%20Water%20Utility%20District%20Web%20Page%20042308.pdf
i want homeowners to only pay 2.50 per month like these cities and
churches and institutions 10 dollars per acre a month and commercial 10 to 15 dollars a month. those are good numbers and they need to make them work.
whats wrong david, your blog sucking wind so you try and start some chit. somebody insult one of your friends on council or at the psb and you come out with this spin.. mccain loss and your mad. you think the numbers the psb gives us is "the law" on what they need and we think the numbers we give them is what they need to work with. when has the psb ever given anything back to the homeowner.
CNEC
November 18, 2008
No, hellraizer, you are the idiot. DavidK is right on target. And, "El Paso Reporter" is posting lies. Archuleta's salary is not what he is stating. Funny thing is, he is using the same figures Ray Gilbert used at a Council meeting adn Ray was proven wrong. Of course, Ray is proven wrong again and again and again and he doesn't go away.
chas
November 18, 2008
The city attorney whom we the tax payors pay, will always side with the mayor and the council. Its a delaying game again. Nowhere in the statues does it say the council can't manage the utility since it is reponsible for its action, a responsiblity they have given to the PSB which is is the basic problem and the cause of this petition.,
Nonsense
November 19, 2008
David K
Business owners are probably home owners. Your claim makes no sense!
wow
November 19, 2008
archuletas salary.
http://elpasoda.org/blog/files/admin_EdArchuletta2.pdf
Ken G
November 20, 2008
The Flood of 2006 highlighted our lack of a good storm water system. The El Paso Streets Department was completely unprepared. It takes a major event (the Flood) to point out our deficiencies.
The PSB has far more expertise than the City Council and take parochliasm out of prioritizing projects.
The sticking point was/is how to pay for it. The major fallacy was trying to make business pay more to protect home owner taxpayers. This is needs to be revisited. Taxpayer supported properties (schools, city entities (police, fire, Sun Metro) need to be exempt since this is just double taxation. Exempting or reducing fees for churches and non-profits gives them a taxpayer subsidy.
Taxing businesses is politically popular but counter productive. Any business has two options; pass the cost on to customers or go out of business. The taxpayer pay directly or indirectly.
Mark B.
November 22, 2008
Daivd K. is right and the City council has also done what no other Couincil did; address storm water planning. The PSB is loaded with talented and professional people who are creating a Storm Water Utility that will build and maintain our infrastructure.
This is one issue all El Pasoans must understand and support. El Paso was one the only major city without a STorm Water Utility. The PSB is the only qualified entity to manage it. Enough said.
Ken G
November 22, 2008
I think a compromise can be reached. PSB does have the expertise and it should be used. Maybe a separate more transparent board to set rates. City Council does not have the expertise. Imagine Rachel Quintana trying to run anything.
wow
November 25, 2008
The setup of this utility was a scam, with no discussion with businesses about their rates. They could have floated a bond and had the fees pay for it and then stoped the fees.
They didn't want the citizens to vote on it either. businesses will pay the fee but not the enormous rates they are charging. Wilson and Cook wanted the utility so they wouldn't have to deal with it and turn edit over to the PSB and Archuleta. They also were able to take it out of the budget and say the bogus lie that they didn't raise your taxes this year for the first time in history.
There is no accountability and everything is so secretive at the PSB that no one trust them. to those of you who think the PSB's experise is needed, well i have seen many times where 4 EPWU workers are watching and joking while one is in the hole doing the work. Doesn't sound much different than the street dept. if you ask me.
According to the CAD there are 153,397 single family residences with probably 7,344 of those being over 2400 square feet. i use this number because 2400+garage+porches puts you over the 3000 impervious surface. therefore houses single story 2400+ are probably paying the 5.94 and 2.97 for those below 2400 sq feet. that would mean the psb is collecting over 500,000 dollars a month just on residences as we speak and thats not counting mobile homes,townhouses, condos, and duplexes. over 6 mil a year and maybe more. Have you seen any info on how much has been collected ? No, you haven't. He did not attend that day’s Commissioners Court meeting (Monday, Nov. 17, 2008). With businesses paying over 100 dollars an acre for 3 months and now 66 dollars an acre per month, I want to know how much they have collected on businesses. I bet its 6 times or more, but with the PSB there is no accounting and no oversight.
Making the city set the rates makes them accountable to re-election. i cant vote Archuleta out of office, but i can our officials. giving Archuleta full control gives him the right to raise rates and with no accountability. He could also use this money for other purposes without us knowing. Forming this utility would have been ok if everyone trusted Archuleta. The problem is, no one does.
Here is Laredo's stormwater fees just so you can see how bad the commercial side is getting screwed.
http://esd.ci.laredo.tx.us/ESDWeb/rate05.pdf
here is el paso's
http://www.epwu.org/stormwater/stormwater_rates.html