City’s flawed proposed PID policy desperately needs additional safeguards for homeowners

The Kyle City Council is preparing to discuss a hand-over-the-keys-to-the-treasury-to-developers-and-screw-the-homeowners PID policy. You can check it out for yourselves. Go to Page 147 of Tuesday’s city council agenda and read it for yourself.

Now perhaps council members will try to say my description of this policy is incorrect. And I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps I am wrong. But I’m going to place the burden of proof on them to show me I’m wrong. There are a couple of very easy steps the council can take to show me the error of my ways.

First and foremost, postpone the discussion of this policy until such time as the two newly elected council members, Damon Fogley and Daphne Tenorio, assume their respective positions. Right now the council consists of two lame duck members whom voters can’t hold responsible for their actions. That is not transparent government. In fact, is undemocratic. Citizens must retain the right to hold those they elect responsible for actions those elected officials take that affect them, especially affect them monetarily. So just put off discussing this until the new members are seated.

Second the PID policy must include language similar, if not identical, to this:

"The City of Kyle will allow the use of Public Improvement Districts for single-family districts (defined as areas with a minimum of 30 percent of land area dedicated to detached single-family housing) in established areas (defined as at least 80 percent of all single-family lots being developed) for the purpose of funding screening wall improvements, park improvements and maintenance, landscaping, other public improvement and additional security if less than 50 percent of the total PID budget. The PID Policy will NOT support the creation of PID Districts in undeveloped subdivisions."

If council members are indeed interested in protecting the rights of homeowners, they should have no qualms about inserting the above language into its PID policy. If they refuse, you know the council is siding with developers at the expense of homeowners. What the council intends to do is not to grant PIDs to neighborhoods, as it should, but to developers who will use the money as they see fit and than assess the homeowners who purchase individual parcels of land within the PID after the fact. That, dear friends, is a textbook example of taxation without representation and rumor has it revolutions have erupted over such tyrannical actions.

PID stands for "Public Improvement District." It’s a mechanism used to improve an area, not to develop it. The city can use much fairer methods, such as tax increment financing, for development purposes.

The third item under the General category in Kyle’s proposed policy says: "PID petition signatures should reflect that a reasonable attempt was made to obtain the full support of the PID by the majority of the property owners located within the proposed PID."

That’s simply not strong enough. If you are going to force the property owners of a neighborhood to pay an assessment to finance improvements to their neighborhood, you need the buy-in of more than "a reasonable attempt" at securing majority approval. If the council really wants to protect property owners it will substitute that third item with this language:

"In new or renewing Single-Family PIDs, the City will require that Owners representing at least 66.7 percent of the value and 66.7 percent of all record Owners or 66.7 percent of land area support the creation of a new PID.

"In new and renewing commercial or mixed use district PIDs, the City will require that Owners representing at least 60 percent of the value and 60 percent of all record Owners or 60 percent of land area support the creation of a new or renewing PID."

Under the section labeled "Financing Criteria," the following language should be inserted:

"PID assessments will be based on a set rate based on total property value. The maximum PID assessment in Kyle shall be $0.15 per $100 valuation."

"Administrative expenses in these districts shall not exceed 10 percent of the total budget in any year."

Under the section labeled "Project Criteria," the following language should be inserted:

"A PID application for creating or renewing a PID shall include a section that clearly identifies the benefit of the PID to the affected property owners and to the city as a whole and also evidence of insurance."

"Any management firm for a PID shall be required to submit quarterly reports of all activities and expenditures; an annual independent audit of all PID expenditures; and shall hold an annual meeting open to all property owners and held in a public meeting space with written notice to all property owners in the PID at least two weeks prior to this meeting to provide an opportunity for property owner questions, comments and input to be considered during the PID Budget and Service Plan approval process."

With these safeguards in place, property owners will be protected and PIDs can be used as they were intended.

And if these "clarifications" are included in Kyle’s PID policy I will issue a formal apology to council members for calling them evil devils beholden only to developers at the expense of property owners.