Oops. Looks like I got it wrong again.

Option #1

Upon further review, it seems that the City’s Ordinance 017850 authorized the election about the ballpark based on Section 334 of Texas Local Government Code, which covers Parks and Other Recreational and Cultural Resources. So it’s not a public/private partnership.

What makes this doubly curious is an email from City Manager Joyce Wilson to the Bond Election consultant Rick Horrow, in which she states, “If we do #1 (Add a question [to the ballot] to approve increasing the HOT tax to support one or both of these [sports] venues), it takes two elections.” #1 refers to the process delineated in Section 334 of the Texas Local Government Code. In the email, Ms. Wilson advocates the Public Private Partnership (P3) approach.

To me, it looks like in their zeal to promote the ballpark, the City cut some corners. Like one of the two elections. And then they steamrolled everyone else to not only not notice it, but to not even question it. Were they misinformed? Was Ms. Wilson wrong when she told Mr. Horrow that it took two elections under Section 334?

I’ve found that open lines of honest communication eliminate most of these kinds of problems. Is that a novel idea?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.