The property originally proposed to be annexed but left out by the compromise would be part of a three-year annexation plan which city officials said would give them the time needed to extend the proper infrastructure to those areas.
Those who favored the annexation argued it was needed for three reasons. First, it would give the city more leverage when it comes to development along the new Highway 150 which is planned to go through this area. Second, new home construction is already planned for the newly annexed properties and the city wants to ensure that construction is up to its more rigid standards than those imposed by Hays County. Third, it lessens the tax burden on existing homeowners by spreading that burden among more property owners.
Those opposed to the annexation appeared to fall into three groups: No-growth advocates, those who believed persons shouldn’t be annexed against their will and those who felt the city was rushing the proceedings and not giving those in the area more time to decide how they felt about being annexed.
"The area to the south where the 150 alignment might go is a concern," Mayor Webster said in explaining the reasoning for his compromise proposal. "Almost all of those properties came in with development agreements so that was OK. They’re going to be out for the next 45 years if they want to be. But if the property is flipped and/or developed, we have control over what happens because it’s technically inside the city limits."
On the annexation map located on page 267 of last night’s agenda, all the land labeled "property to be annexed" north of Opal Lane was annexed as were the properties south of Opal located west of the current city limits to that white space (which is where the properties with the development agreements are located).
"The two properties that are south of Opal were a priority because they’re flipping and they’re going residential and they were going to develop to county standards," the mayor said.
Webster said he asked staff to overlay a map of the current utility infrastructure over a map of the area proposed to be annexed. "What you see is all the utilities branching out and going down all the roads right up to Opal. So we already had utility infrastructure up that point so that’s when I started seeing Opal as a natural dividing point."
That, he said, is the point of the three-year annexation agreement for those areas south of Opal, to give the city the time needed to plan for the utilities in that area.
"The ones north of Opal that we are annexing with the exception of those properties going more towards the highway (I-35), they’ve got water there," Webster said. "Wastewater is an issue and we’re working on that.
"It also seemed unfair to the other taxpayers of the city that those residents living that close to Center Street weren’t included in the city," the mayor added. "There is a fairness issue with the people who are subsidizing all that infrastructure. So, for me, it just seemed like the right thing to do."
But, above every thing else, was the proposed re-routing of Highway 150.
"We needed to get that road into the city," the mayor said. "I didn’t make the decision to put the road through there — in fact, I strongly advocated for it to be in another location, but I lost — but that’s where it’s going. When that road goes through, property is going to flip and I didn’t want to put the city in a position of having to play catchup."
I have asked the city to provide exactly how many acres will be included in the involuntary annexation under the terms of the compromise, but the person who could provide those numbers, Planning Director Howard J. Koontz, was out of the office today. I asked the mayor the same question last night and he told me the exact number will appear on the council’s April 19 agenda but, he said, "I think we got about 85 percent of the involuntary."
"It just made sense to me that this was the right way to go," the mayor said.
Not everyone on the council agreed, however.
"I think all this has been handled un-customer friendly." council member Daphne Tenorio said. "It has not been handled in a way that I would consider professional. We can’t take care of what we already have. Why are we putting more on our plate?" She added she could not approve "any annexation involuntarily period."
Council member Shane Arabie asked Tenorio what she would like to see happen.
"They should be given more time," she replied. "People didn’t have time to contact attorneys. We rushed them through this so we could get this approved before anything else happened. There should have been more time allocated to these individuals. If you’re going to do something, it needs to be transparent. This process needs to be streamlined. I feel for the people who are being involuntarily annexed. I don’t wish that on anybody. For me, this has been handled very unprofessionally and very sloppily."
Mayor Pro Temp David Wilson argued that because of the development agreements, those opposed to being annexed are not being forced to pay city taxes. "I was very happy these people applied for the development agreements. At the end of the day, I think we did what we needed to do."
"I’d like to see more time being given," Tenorio countered. "I’d like to give the homeowners and the landowners more time to seek legal advice and to give them a longer deadline."
When Wilson asked her what her time line would be, she replied "At least through May."
When Tenorio moved to deny all 15 of the development agreements, Arabie said "Under these agreements we’re telling these property owners they can do exactly what they want with their properties for the next 45 years. Do you now want to tell them we’re not going to let them do that?"
Council member Diane Hervol said that was not what the motion implied. "What we’re asking for is a more transparent process, a more detailed process, one that is not convoluted and confuses them. We’re not trying to deny them the 45 years. If these people knew annexation wasn’t going to happen, they probably wouldn’t have signed the development agreement."
"I don’t have a problem with giving them more time," Arabie said, but, he said, he was concerned that neither Hervol nor Tenorio were making any suggestions on how the process could have been improved. "If you offer up something, I’ll be more than happy to consider it," he said.
Mayor Webster added "There were a substantial number of development agreements completed, so how can you say there wasn’t enough time? They were negotiated. They were finished."
"But we gave them a deadline to get them done," Tenorio said. "We should have given them more time. We cannot strong-arm people. And setting a deadline without giving them an opportunity to come back is a strong-arm tactic that I will not be a part of."
Wilson then called the vote which failed 2-5, with Hervol and Tenorio the only ones voting to deny all the development agreements. Wilson then moved to approve the development agreements, making them all consistent with 15-year terms and renewal options. That motion passed 6-1 with Hervol dissenting.
In other action last night, the council:
- Unanimously approved the additions of Allen Deaver and Laura Cooke to the Parks and Recreation Board.
- Unanimously overturned the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission and granted a variance to Gorge Ulloa who lives in Kyle’s ETJ and wanted to subdivide his 1.6 acre lot. The variance was required because city ordinances require all such lots to be larger than one acre.
- Instructed City Manager Scott Sellers to proceed with his proposed Beautification Plan that was apparently conceived, at least in large part, by Texas State intern Erin Smith, who presented the plan to the council.
- Tabled consideration of both a special use agreement involving the management of the Historic Train Depot and amendments to the city’s ordinance governing commercial wrecker services.
No comments:
Post a Comment