Corpusfishing.com

[The Trash Heap]

The front page article ( http://www.caller.com/news/2007/dec/16/wrda/?printer=1/ ) in the December 16, 2007 Caller-Times about the local improvements featured in the 2007 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) very briefly and w/o details mentions the Packery channel project: "The 2007 Water Resources Development Act authorizes:
------
Clarifying that the Packery Channel project funding purposes include recreation and facilities maintenance."

For some time we've been waiting to learn what the purpose of that vague language was. In the December 9, 2007 edition of the Caller-Times, an article gave the following explanation for the delay in construction of the recreational amenities at the proposed Packery Channel jetty parks:
"The city also is waiting to see whether federal money recently allowed for such recreational projects can be used. If available, the city's share of money could be reduced, and the money could go further.

"That's worth waiting for, said City Councilman Michael McCutchon, whose district includes the area."

The problem with waiting to see if the 2007 version of the WRDA can be used for cost-sharing before beginning the Packery parks' construction isn't obvious until you read the last bit of the December 16 article:

"The bill that would fund the Coastal Bend projects is expected to come from the Transportation-Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill some time in 2008, said Danny Guerra, press secretary for U.S. Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz, D-Corpus Christi.

""Including projects in the Water (Resources Development Act) makes them eligible for funding, but it doesn't guarantee that funding," Guerra said. "If they are funded, we should see that funding some time in 2009.""

In other words, the WRDA authorizes funding for various activities, but does not actually provide that funding, which remains at best more than a year away.

However, as the December 16 article states earlier,

"The Port of Corpus Christi didn't wait for federal funding before beginning work on widening and deepening the Corpus Christi Ship Channel. It didn't even wait for Congress to approve the project..... Of the projected amount, the port has a cost-share of between $125 million and $150 million and federal dollars, by way of the Army Corps of Engineers, were projected between $175 million and $200 million, said David Krams, the port's senior project manager. Even with funding not expected until 2009, Krams said work on the projects is expected to continue."

The significance of the Port's actions, explained at length in the December 16 article, in avoiding costly delays by proceeding with its projects before cost-sharing was authorized, much less funded, by Congress, is that those actions speak louder than the words attributed to the city and the councilman a week before.

Using the Port as its example, the City should have done what it told the voters it would do before and after the Packery TIF election: sell the bonds needed to pay for all the primary elements promised on the Packery Channel/TIF Information Sheet ( http://www.cctexas.com/files/g29/packery.pdf ), cost-sharing not only the channel and jetties, but also when and if possible those recreational amenities included among the elements. Now that the 2007 WRDA has authorized the Packery Channel recreational facilities, there is even more expectation of such cost-sharing than there was immediately after the TIF election, so there is even less of an excuse to delay, perhaps until sometime in 2009, commencement of the parks' construction. The TIF won't be fully functional in paying off those bonds until the improvements are in place. Build the improvements now, generate the TIF dollars now, and wait for the federal cost-share to reimburse the TIF and/or the construction bonds later. The City is losing not only the recreational features for its citizens, but also the tourist draw and the tax increment while it delays.

Item 27 on the December 18, 2007 Corpus Christi City Council Meeting Agenda is a presentation on the Packery Channel Development Plan. Although public comment is not allowed at the time of the presentation, there is nothing to prevent an open discussion during the general public comment period of the construction delay and the lame excuses being given for that delay. Whether I attend to speak depends at this time on what the as-yet un-posted attachment about the presentation has to say about the delay, if anything.
_________________
The Trash Heap Has Spoken!
NNYYAAAHH!!!

[Dexter]

Thanks for the info and I sure hope it works out without too much delay. Thanks for spending your time.
Dexter
_________________
Pinsbeach

><(((*> ~.~.~ ><(((*> ~.~.~ ><(((*>