Alamo Heights - myAlamoHeights.com

...
written by 7820hMy , December 17, 2009

I'm going to set aside for a moment the ongoing (and relevant) debate about Tony's objectivity and point out something that he should have picked up on. He states $375,625 was paid to Lake-Flato in fees. That's a big number (though I don't know that it qualifies as the "lion's share" of $769,000 as Tony claims). a*suming the architects were about halfway through their design which as near as we can tell they were, their TOTAL fee would have been twice the number that was reported - or about $750,000. Again that's a BIG number. Architects' fees (which as "Realist" pointed out include consulting engineers and the like) are figured as a percentage of the cost of the building. 750,000 is 7.3% of 1,030,000. 7.3% is a really LOW number for an architect's fee, especially for a famous one like Lake-Flato.

Now we can argue (and Lord knows we have) about whether or not the produced design was a good one or whether it should have been executed prior to the bond election, but the city should at least get some credit for negotiating the architect down to a really small fee. They probably were able to get Lake-Flato so cheap because of the economy and the fact most firms are scrambling to find work. I fear that won't be the case the next time the city tries to build their city hall.

...
written by Perry Legal , December 17, 2009

I've watched this without comment for too long.

The problem with the story is that you cannot take the reporters facts at face value. If the underlying premise/ facts are faulty then the conclusions you draw from them will also be faulty. I think that is the point that Realist was trying to make and I must say that I agree it was probably done for shock effect.

I don't see where a fire station built a year or year and a half ago has anything to do with bond costs. We had to have it to accommodate the new fire truck regardless of the bond issue or its outcome and it came out of a previous budgeted amount.

Mr. Cantu is either easily confused or easily led astray.

...
written by Yawn , December 17, 2009

Bud,

Think of it as a jab at your style for answering questions with subject-changing questions, and not an insult to your internet personage. Merry Christmas and Peace on Ether.

...
written by BUD , December 17, 2009

Now that's just plain ugly and uppity mr.yawn. And i happen to drive a brand new Chevy with mag wheels and a big pipe bumper paid for with cash for clukers. I would like an old cla*sic pickup but Mama said no.

...
written by Yawn , December 17, 2009

Nobody expects an intelligent response from Bud. He just trolls this site the way he putts around town in his old truck, looking for places to insinuate himself. It's hard being useless.

...
written by BUD , December 17, 2009

The internet ain't it grand?

...
written by Paul , December 17, 2009

Bud, the great thing about the internet is that you can voice your opinion and the days of a one paper town are going away. Actually the days of newspapers is going away.
But let's get back to the subject you keep dodging, do you think the city should have spent all this money on the proposed plan? Was the plan thought out as thoroughly has it should have been? Were all options considered? I think is was a poorly executed plan which cost the tax payers dearly. It has nothing to do with Mr. Cantu's requests, the E-N or AHNA's position.

...
written by BUD , December 17, 2009

Hallelujah - we have finally found something we can all agree on! THE E-N is inadequate. It's tough living in a one horse newspaper town.

...
written by Dave , December 16, 2009

Bud,

Taking the reporter's statements at face value, it would appear he tried to fashion a request to learn what the city spent to prepare a bond proposal. It appears there are differences of opinion as to what was relevant in what was probably an overly broad request. All the same, it's the press's duty to try to make us aware of these things, and I am grateful someone, even the amateurish Cantu, is making the attempt.

The mainstream SAE-N newspaper's leadership is not interested in asking these questions. Too many people and too many dinner parties would be scandalized with all this political talk.

...
written by BUD , December 16, 2009

Dave,
How do you know what Cantu requested?

...
written by Dave , December 16, 2009

Cantu hasn't been a great reporter, but his was a reasonable request.

In my opinion, nobody but the city officials or their close friends would post an apology or an excuse for the officials' decisions. Politics is a rough business and a thankless task.

The costs described, and the costs not released by the city for project estimators and bond counsel, seem out of line.

My opinion counts simply because I am a voter in Alamo Heights. My anonymous voice is no more or less credible than the apologists on this site, but I am sure the usual suspects will jump out to demand support for my opinion.

...
written by Tea Bagger , December 16, 2009

First the conversation turn toward the reporter then to AHNA, neither of which are the subject of the Tony's story. You cannot give the city officials a pa*s on this. One must question the wisdom of the city officials. No backup or smaller plan option. It was all or nothing and "nothing" should NOT have been an option when it comes to better police and fire protection. No apparent direction on the design and little concern with the any historic preservation. This was the biggest snafu in AH history and the officials need to own it.

...
written by Realist , December 16, 2009

Great name TB - we know what you are.
I was simply questioning why the numbers were inflated by the reporter. Was it for effect?
The fire station came out of last years budget so isn't relevant to his article.
The Lake Flato costs also included a mechanical engineer, a structural engineer, a space design specialist and other technical consultants.
These costs had to be estimated in order to determine projected price to be presented to the public. You cannot present a bond issue for the public to vote on that doesn't have a price of the project.

If Mr. Cantu failed to get the information he thought he should have, perhaps it was because he didn't write his request correctly. That I can believe.

Like I said, did they think that these people worked for free?

People work for free - Oh wait, that would be the AHNA group working for free on their 5 million dollar plan. Bet those boys will be in for a surprise when they find they don't have the expertise in their group to get it done.

...
written by Tea Bagger , December 16, 2009

Norm and Realist miss the point because they have some axe to grind with this reporter. We elected these officials to be good stewards of our tax dollars and in this case, they were clearly not.

...
written by Norm de Plume , December 16, 2009

.. less .. let me try again, try ... lower ...

...
written by Norm de Plume , December 16, 2009

Why it is even $125,000 lea*s than the purported $600,000 quoted earlier. Thanks for digging Tony!

...
written by Jimmy Dean , December 16, 2009

Realist, I don't think "the Cantu" is suggesting that at all, as far as what I read from his story. You must admit this was a large sum of our tax money for a project that was not completed. Is this normal, standard business practices/costs?

...
written by Realist , December 16, 2009

So did the Cantu really think that all these people would do the work for free? How silly. Lake Flato did the bulk of the work and as such would naturally have received the most in fees. The city now has the use of the additional space of the house purchased and the initially temporary fire station is now permanent - so what does that have to do with the cost of the bond issue? The city has additional a*sets it can use.

...
written by Paul , December 16, 2009

$375,625 to Lake/Flato!?, the officials should be ashamed by the way this was handled.