Why Are you running for city council?
I’m running because I feel I have something to offer our city. From my past experience as a council member, also my profession in engineering, construction, project management, contract administration. You deal with those issues on a daily basis and the number one survey taken by the city – the top three things are roads, roads, roads, infrastructure, water and wastewater – that’s my forte.
What would you do differently than your predecessor?
I would do most of it differently. If you look at the history of most of my predecessors, the way they evaluated or attacked the budget every year, there are looking at putting out fires with that budget, they’re looking at feel-good projects instead of looking at the big picture – the holistic picture of what our problems really are and investing in solutions to those problems. And as you can tell we have a deficient infrastructure, no roads, no maintenance on roads we do have for the past 10 years. That tells you they have not looked to the future and looked at our problems that are coming our way. So I would do most of it differently.
Do you think the new city manager is going to be looking at the budget any differently than his predecessors?
We had that first budget meeting and from what I saw, the answer is "no." We’re getting $3 million in new money for this year and a projected $3 million for each of the next five years – that’s our conservative values. So that’s $15 million and the proposal for 2016 alone is $26 million. If you look at the budget there’s some ridiculous things in there. Again, they’re not looking at the big picture to see what’s coming our way.
What do you think are the best ways to maintain communications with your constituents?
Definitely attend council meetings and attend any public events. Support city events and during all these events communicate with your constituents. I think what (outgoing council member) Samantha (Bellows) did — I think she was the first one to start it — is allocating one day solely for meeting with citizens. I think that’s a great idea. That’s something I would definitely look into.
What do you think of such a meeting to outline the manager’s proposed budget to constituents and elicit their feedback?
That’s a great idea and something I would think about. That’s something that needs to be done. I would push for that. Of course, we have budget meetings. They are very long. You go line item by line item. I would like to provide cookies, cake, lemonade — something to attract the citizens to this type of meeting — you gotta make it exciting for them.
What do you think are the major issues Kyle should address over the next decade?
Roads and infrastructure. The infrastructure is a little more critical because you’re talking about water and wastewater. As they city grows you’re always going to have to expand the capacity of your water lines, the size of your water lines, the size of your wastewater lines. That’s always going to be an issue. You’re never going to overcome that because most cities, most states, most federal agencies don’t say "I’m going to put in a 42-inch line for 40 years." It doesn’t work that way, it’s not feasible, So you’re always going to have that issue and it’s always going to be a big issue. The more development you have, it becomes harder to build these things because now you don’t have right-of-way or you’re under a road whatever. So utilities are always a major issue, always. Spending is always going to be an issue because there are different philosophies of spending, I like this, but you like that. Spending is always going to be an issue, especially through our growing pains. Water in 10 years is going to be a hot topic. I call water "gold." That’s what I say to people. We’ve done a good job to buy some water rights. I think water will be a big issue. It will determine if we stay at 30,000 population or grow to 100,000. Infrastructure also means wastewater plants. Of course you can build a water plant within a year or two so it’s easy to do but there’s still the cost.
Do you think the city should build and operate its own wastewater plant?
The city right now is in a legal dispute over trying to buy that plant. The contract allows us to buy it back. The city forever was paying about three-quarters of a million collars to three gentlemen to operate this thing. And yet what we owe to buy it back is still in same price range as it cost us to build it, even though we’ve been paying three quarters of a million dollars per year for it. Actually, I started that conversation when I was on council. "Hey, why are we paying three-quarters of a million dollars? Why not just hire two guys from public works?" So I started that conversation. I would buy it even if it cost the same amount we paid for it originally and operate it ourselves. In the long run, you’ll see the rate of return.
What do you think of the city manager’s idea of making Kyle a "destination" city?
There’s two sides to that. I don’t think the people of Kyle being so small — I mean right now we’re going through growing pains, people want to see growth, a lot of people want to see all these economics, economic development, they want to see the new roads — but there is an impact to them. Our taxes go up. I like the small town attitude. That’s why I like it here. There’s a lot of positive things to being a destination because it does bring economic development. People want to come and buy and enjoy our city. I like the small-town attitude and the small-town atmosphere, the friendly people. I prefer to keep it that way, while having the H-E-Bs of the world or the shopping mall close by and jobs close by.
What do you think of the recommendations regarding commissions, boards and committees?
The way we functioned before — and I chaired a couple of committees — basically at that time the mayor asked candidates to be on the committees. Personally, I didn’t question it. I thought it was OK. I’ll do it. Fine. But according to the new mayor the charter doesn’t say council members have to be on a committee or have to chair the committee. It should be a representative of the citizens. And I totally agree with that. I think it should be total citizens — voters who want to give council input because they are the voice of the city. And I don’t think we as council people should chair and direct those conversations. I’m all for having committees. The more committees the better because you get the citizens involved. And that’s the bridge between the voters and the council.
What do you think of TIFs and PIDs?
I’m not for them. We had the LaSalle MUD trying to come into the city when I was on council. I analyzed it from an engineer’s point of view, from a cost analysis point of view, and I don’t see no benefit. I’ve had multiple discussions with council members. Now that I’ve been off council, the first MUD passed. But PIDs and TIFs are basically the same thing but they’re more for commercial development. I think it’s a tool we should use but the way we’ve been giving away the farm is totally reckless. And it has cost us. The citizens are taking the majority of that burden instead of the businesses. There was one last year called R&R, Inc., and that was for $10 million. And if you look at that contract, there’s typically a section that says "city obligations." We will do x. y. and z. And if you look at this one you couldn’t find where the obligation from the developer was. So are way saying "Here’s $10 million?" That’s just reckless. And I have heard from several council members that that is one of the biggest things coming up this year. That’s why a lot of council members are taking for the first time a position to recognizing or assisting candidates one way or another because that is a big topic. It’s my understanding that there’s been talks or discussions where contracts or agreements are being put together by the developer or the economic entity. To me, you’re just giving them a blank check. I worked for the city of San Marcos for three years and everything that came before them was a PID or a MUD. Everything. There was nothing sinful about it. You know they had the economic money because they get a lot of tax revenue from the shopping mall there. So they can do that and I think it has helped them. I’ve never looked or read one of their contracts, but I think they are doing it right. Those contracts are project specific. You’re not going to do the same contract for a 100-house development as one for 2,000. So what Kyle is doing now makes no sense. In Kyle, they are giving the PIDs to the developers which is totally unheard of. In San Marcos, it starts with a conversation between upper city manager – not council, not the mayor – but planning and zoning, engineering department and the developer and says "Instead of a 12-inch water line, I need a 44-inch, so let’s do a PID." You’re asking the developer to go beyond what he is proposing. So at that point it becomes a PID.
What are your views on roundabouts in general and specifically one to replace the four-way stop sign at Kyle Parkway and Kohlers Crossing?
I am very familiar and have done a lot of research into roundabouts. As a construction manager for the city of San Marcos, I built in one my CIP projects the first two roundabouts for the city of San Marcos. That’s in a subdivision called Rio Vista subdivision. A lot of controversy so I had to do my due diligence and research. There is a place and a location for roundabouts. It’s not applicable to every situation. They function when you put them in the right location. TxDOT just does not like roundabouts. They don’t like thinking out of the box. From my research in doing roundabouts, it’s not applicable (at Kohlers and Kyle Parkway). Put in the right location they will function and you will have continuous movement. That’s the intent of them. They also reduce head-on collisions. The problem is it’s not applicable because the speed limit is too high. At that location you have 60 miles an hour. Think about going on a radial at 60 miles an hour. You’re going to kill yourself. It’s not applicable. It’s like trying to put a roundabout on I-35. It does not work because of the speed limit. If it was a 30 mile-per-hour situation, yes. I think where it is applicable and will save the city a lot of money is on Bunton where the city is thinking about adding signal lights on that new road project from 35 to Lehman. There’s a T at Goforth and there’s a T at Lehman and they’re thinking about putting lights there. One light runs about $150,000 average so you put two lights, two poles whatever and you’re looking at $300,000. That would be an ideal location for roundabouts because they’re low speed limit and you have a lot of movement. And it’s cheaper because all you’re actually paying for is curb and gutter. Curb and gutter is a lot cheaper than signal lights. And they’re low maintenance and you can make them decorative architecturally.
Do you support spending taxpayers funds on items some might consider frivolous such as art in public places?
I would not support that. I think the Chamber of Commerce could take that up. It sounds like a tourist item. It might be more appropriate to use HOT (Hotel-Motel taxes) funds for that. I think if we’re going to do an attraction site, an attraction project, something to attract on a big scale, we should use HOT funds to do that. But I would think about using other funds to do a big water fountain or something huge.
Do you support the current council makeup of three single member and three at large districts?
I think it works fine. I think it’s a pretty good combination.
Your opinion on having city council elections every year?
That’s tough. I don’t think tough from the candidate’s perspective. I enjoy doing it. I do it because I like doing it. I like meeting people. I like talking to people. But it becomes cumbersome on the voter because after a while you’re knocking on their door again and their reaction is "Didn’t you just come last year?" It becomes very cumbersome for the voter. I hear complaints from my personal family: "We have to go vote again?" And then you have all the other elections and I think it becomes cumbersome, I think it should be every other year, every second year or every third year. I think that’s a better way to do it.
Do you prefer council-manager or strong mayor form of government?
That’s a loaded question. I am not in favor of a strong mayor. But in the past, in our growing pains, we were a small town and we grew up and our population grew and we had a very strong city manager. It worked for a while until ... I don’t know if the city wasn’t prepared for it or council members weren’t prepared for it, but there was not enough checks and balances to question or to regulate some of his decisions. After a while it became obvious it was not working. And that’s when we changed our first city manager. But I think it should be a combined effort between the entire council and the mayor working with the city manager. That’s the only way you can have checks and balances. I am not in favor of a strong mayor. I would like us to have a strong city manager with foresight.
Are there changes you would like to see made to the city charter?
I participated heavily in the last charter review. A lot of things that were on there were my ideas. Things I would like to see looked into: One, which became very controversial when I proposed it the last time and I hope it comes up again is pay for council members. I think if we pay council members and the mayor a good paying wage they would take the job more seriously. Then they become more accountable for their decisions. They didn’t have the excuse of saying "It’s just a volunteer position." You become accountable for your decisions. And you attract more professionals. Not that we don’t have professionals. I hope it comes back up. I don’t mind paying them. One thing I do want to see on there that’s kind of an odd thing is having two council members who are either married, which our charter does not restrict, or live together. I think that’s an ethical issue. I don’t see how they can vote independently of each other if they are in the same household. I don’t think the current charter prevents that – I don’t think it’s prevented anywhere. And it’s probably not constitutionally correct, but I would love to have that discussion.
What can be done to attract more salaried jobs to Kyle?
I think what we have going for us is opening the doors to the medical arena. I think we should continue with that. I would love to make us a medical hub where you will attract a lot of doctors and nurses which are high paying jobs. We’ve started it. We’ve taken a good first step and we can continue that. Incentives are the way to do that. It used to be all the doctors for my family were in Austin. Now we do all that business right here in Kyle. We should continue on that path. It not only grows the doctors and nurses but there are a lot of other jobs associated with that – maintenance and custodial, The restaurants. It impacts the whole thing. Hopefully with that there’s even been talk of doing a high-end subdivision. It will attract more people like that. I think we should continue that route.
Should the city invest in mass transit and, if so, what form should it take?
I am not for Lone Star Rail. I think the next big topic coming our way is can we avoid it. Probably not because we’re in the middle of the path. So it would be pretty tough to go against it. But I’m not for it. Especially with what’s being proposed: $100 million from our pockets just so we can build one station. If I was a businessman I’d be the last one to hold out. "I don’t think you can change your path. You’re going to come right through our town so I want it for free." They’re not going to change it. That’s the proposed path. I think the longer we wait and if we’re steadfast I think we can get a better deal. And how we pay for it depends on our finances at that point, It’s going to be 15, 20 years from now so a lot of things could change in that time frame.
No comments:
Post a Comment