City seeks to add a Catalyst to its economic development efforts

The City Council is getting ready to bet that Catalyst Development will live up to its name.

Webster’s defines "catalyst" as something that "increases the rate of a chemical reaction without being consumed in the process." What the council will be wagering at its Tuesday meeting is that Catalyst Development can and will help significantly increase the rate of commercial development in Kyle, thereby providing much-needed property tax relief to residential property owners in the city.

Interestingly, at least to me, the item involving Catalyst the council will be voting on appears on the consent agenda, a section that is usually reserved for two or more non-controversial items that should not garner much discussion and even less debate. Not that this item — which is nothing more than a 12-month agreement to pay Catalyst the comparatively miserly amount of $24,500 to help promote economic development in Kyle — is all that controversial. I just found it the most fascinating, the most interesting item on the agenda and the one that could have the most significant impact on the future of the city.

Of course, there’s always the surprises. Who knew, going into the last council meeting of 2017, the most controversial item was going to be the normally routine process of approving board and commission appointments. And, "whaddya know," there’s a couple of those on this agenda as well — two appointments to the Parks and Recreation Board and three to the Library Board. The council also needs to come up with a replacement for former council member David Wilson to represent position 3 on the Alliance Regional Water Authority board.

And, by the time this, the first council meeting of 2018, adjourns, the city should have its first-ever designated attorney for the Ethics Commission and possibly even a new city attorney. Those items will be discussed in executive session, however, and decisions may or may not be made public after the council returns to a public session.

And there’s that dang zoning issue involving 5½ acres on Windy Hill Road on which the owner wants to build an apartment complex and a small shopping area. That request drew some NIMBY opposition the first couple times it came before the council and it appeared to be opposed by a significant number of council members until the city attorney in that last council meeting of 2017 took the entire council into executive session after which the council meekly and without debate approved the item on first reading 6-1. It apparently has to do with a contract the city and the owner signed as a condition of the property being annexed that forces the council to approve the zoning request. So there’s that and the only thing that might happen is the NIMBYs might want to continue beating their heads against the wall by speaking out against the request during citizen comments period. But that fight appears all but over.

Someone on the council might even raise the question about a motorist apparently driving 116 miles an hour on Kohlers Crossing in late November between the railroad track and I-35. But I’ll get back to that a little later in this story.

Frankly, I’m more concerned about that item number 5 on the consent agenda to "authorize (the) execution of a 12-month professional services agreement with Catalyst Commercial, Inc., Dallas, Texas, for total consulting fees in the amount of $24,500 plus reimbursable expenses at 115 percent of actual costs to provide services related to developing retail business growth and recruitment strategies in the City of Kyle" for the upcoming calendar year.

According to the terms of the agreement, Catalyst is to:

• "Prepare (a) brief creative marketing summary of Top 10 development sites for national and chain retail stores and shall maintain an inventory including available leasable area, dimensions on vacant lease space, parking ratios, available traffic data and accessibility, demographic summary, and schedule of major existing co-tenants, or other pertinent information relative to each property;"
• Coordinate with the Economic Development Commission to conduct an assessment of the top five undeveloped properties that are planned or proposed for future retail; and
• Refine the current recruitment prospect list to the top 20 prospects and develop a merchandising strategy that identifies and prioritizes the likely sites for each prospect."

The one missing ingredient to the above, at least to my way of thinking, was any sort of a deadline. The agreement never says when Catalyst must complete the above mentioned tasks.

"There is no hard deadline for (these ) items, but we have discussed making these available as quickly as possible," City Manager Scott Sellers said Friday. "I would expect these reports to be finalized no later than the end of the first quarter."

That’s fine, but will they be made public? Will the rest of us know who’s on the Catalyst Hit List? And, what’s more, the agreement also states Catalyst has got to coordinate monthly conference calls to update the city of results and statistics of Catalyst’s efforts in Kyle and to provide brief monthly written reports to the city detailing the status of Catalyst’s delivery of what it is being hired to deliver to the city. Will the content of those calls/written reports ever become public?

"The contents of the reports will be largely protected due to the confidential nature of recruiting/negotiating with the prospects," Sellers said. "However, we are happy to make public any portions of these reports that are not confidential."

I was also somewhat disturbed by the language in the agreement that called for "reimbursable expenses at 115 percent of actual costs." When I had my own crisis communications consulting company, I never inflated out-of-pocket costs. I would, in fact, include out-of-pocket receipts with all invoices. I didn’t consider it kosher to make a profit on out-of-pocket expenses. But the city manager satisfied my fears on that item as well.

"The 115 percent reimbursable is only for activities beyond the scope of the contract," Sellers said. "We don't currently anticipate additional activities, but there may be a prospect visit or report for which we will need assistance."

Another item of possible interest on Tuesday’s agenda is one that would increase the speed limit by five miles an hour on that part of Kohlers Crossing between the railroad tracks and I-35 that’s currently designated as a 40-mile-an-hour zone. The change will mean that entire stretch of Kohlers, from 2770 to I-35, will be designated as a 45-mile-an-hour road.

Which brings me back to that maniacal motorist — the one apparently clocked at 116 miles an hour on that stretch. Or perhaps not. Who knows? According to the results of a Traffic Speed Survey on this section of Kohlers conducted between 8 a.m. Nov. 27 and 2 p.m. Nov. 30, the average speed of the motor vehicles during that period was close to 48.9 miles an hour, close to 10 mph above the posted limit. In fact, out of the 9,616 vehicles surveyed during this period, 8,429 of them — a whopping 87.6 percent — exceeded the speed limit. I confess. I regularly take that road to get to and from I-35 and I just as regularly exceed the limit. But what really jumped out at me — screamed in my face, to tell you the truth — was this notation in the survey: "Maximum Speed (mph) 116." Does this mean the survey reported someone was actually driving 116 miles an hour sometime between 8 a.m. Nov. 27 and 2 p.m. Nov. 30 on Kohlers Crossing?. And, if so, what became of the speedster? Did he or she even bother to stop, as required, at the intersection of Kohlers Crossing and Kyle Crossing?

"The device used to capture the speeds and direction of travel does not record video of the violator or of the violation," City Engineer Leon Barba said Friday. "The device simply acts as a statistical recording device; therefore, no identification of the violator would be possible. As such, no driver could be identified and no legal action will take place.

"Being that the speeds indicated at 116 MPH are both shown at the onset of the data tracking activity and that the speeds are significant outliers, these two numbers reflect anomalies that will not be used in the computation of the overall data for the purposes of determining a safe speed for the roadway," Barba added.

You can access the entire agenda for Tuesday’s City Council meeting here.

December a robust month for city sales tax collections

Sales tax collected	Budget surplus	Percent Surplus	FY percent Surplus	Dec. 2016 Collections	Variance from last year
$602,893.26	$54,506.26	9.94%	6.19%	$515,743.09	16.9%

You can read the entire report here.

Tenorio argues qualifications should not be part of committee selection process

Much to the astonishment of most of her colleagues, City Council member Daphne Tenorio said last night an applicant’s qualifications should not be considered when making committee appointments and instead candidates should simply draw straws to see who gets selected.

Tenorio’s comments came during an unusually tumultuous discussion during which the council rejected a nominee for the Ethics Commission and saw what should have been the routine approval for another person to be named to the Planning & Zoning Commission turn into a maelstrom with Tenorio’s comments.

Even though these dramatic events took place barely 30 minutes after the council’s last meeting of the year began, it was the major topic of conversation among four council members who had yet to leave the council chambers 4½ hours later. All four of them — Dex Ellison, Tracy Scheel, Mayor pro tem Shane Arabie and Mayor Travis Mitchell — said they were still shocked, surprised and perplexed by Tenorio’s suggestion that a person’s qualifications for serving on a city board or committee should be ignored and instead they should engage in some form of a lottery to determine how vacancies are filled.

During the discussion over the nomination of engineer Paul Scheibmeir to the Planning & Zoning Commission, Tenorio expressed concern that, if approved, his appointment would result in five planning commissioners living west of I-35 and only two living east. She failed, however, to explain how drawing lots for these positions would rectify that geographical imbalance or, even more importantly, to give any proof that this geographical distribution has had any effect on decisions made by planning commissioners.

In fact, Tenorio’s motives appeared to have more to do with revenge than the council’s committee selection process, a process that was actually reviewed, changed and adopted by the council earlier this year for the purpose of getting more qualified individuals on these committees. Prior to the vote on Scheibmeir, who, by the way, won council approval by a 6-1 vote (Need I say who voted against?), the council rejected Alex Villalobos’s nomination of Marco Pizana to the Ethics Commission with Tenorio being the only council member joining Villalobos in voting for Pizana. Last month, Pizana lost a city council election race and has publicly declared he plans to run again in 2019. The five council members voting against the nomination said the Ethics Commission is the one body filled with city council appointees that should be free from any political influence even if that means excluding those who might otherwise be qualified if they have announced plans to run for elective office.

Still, Tenorio’s comments left many observers scratching their heads over how someone could support the concept that a person’s qualifications should not be a criterion for serving on a city committee.

But that was not the only dramatic moment of last night’s city council meeting. The second one came during consideration of a zoning change request for property located on Windy Hill Road that the owner wanted to convert into an apartment complex with a small area set aside for a gas station/convenience store. The item was held over from the council’s last meeting on Nov. 21 to give City Attorney Frank Garza ample opportunity to research whether an agreement the owner signed with Hays County before his property was annexed by the city that gave him permission to build the complex superseded any action the council might take.

Even though Garza said his research suggested the city’s hands were tied because of that agreement, the council seemed on the verge of rejecting the zoning request. Tenorio had made a motion to deny the zoning change and it was seconded by Damon Fogley who stated he opposed the zoning change because there was already too much traffic congestion on Windy Hill Road. And judging from the comments made when this item came up for discussion at the council’s Nov. 21 meeting, only Arabie seemed to be a sure vote in favor of the zoning change.

But when Ellison asked Garza what exactly would be the legal ramifications on all parties of any council decision, Garza said that answer could only come during a discussion that took place in an executive session setting. Following a 30-minute executive session, council members filed back into their respective places on the dais and without any discussion demurely voted 6-1 to approve the zoning change recommended earlier last month by the Planning & Zoning Commission.

The council also approved delaying the start of the Lehman Road reconstruction for at least four months in the hope that the project might qualify to receive state and federal funding that would pay 80 percent of the cost of that project, along with four other planned capital improvement projects, the most expensive of which is the relocation of the railroad siding that results in stopped trains blocking traffic on Center Street in the heart of the city’s downtown area. The council was told that if the Lehman project scores high enough to receive these federal and state dollars, the revenues generated when voters approved the sale of bonds to finance the Lehman project could be used to add other-desired amenities to it, specifically a bridge that would completely remove Lehman from a flood plain. That was enough to convince all seven council members to vote in favor of a request to apply for the money.

Council to debate time vs. money

Which is the more valuable commodity: time or money? Is it a higher moral imperative for a municipal government to keep a promise it made to its citizen even if it means keeping that promise may not be the most judicious use of taxpayers’ dollars?

These are some of the questions the City Council must grapple with Tuesday night when it considers whether to apply for federal funds to help with various capital improvement projects because, like most, if not all, such requests, strings are definitely attached.

The item in question is one to consider and possibly take action "to approve a request for the CAMPO 2019-2022 Project Call." Specifically, the council will debate whether it wants to seek federal funding for the following projects:

• Center Street rail siding relocation ($14.9 million)
• Burleson ($8.79 million)
• Lehman ($8.01 million)
• Kyle Crossing ($1.28 million)
• Post Road ($2.5 million)

If the CAMPO requests are granted, the feds would pay 80 percent of the aforementioned price tag for each project and the city would be required to pay the other 20 percent.

Three of the above-mentioned items appear to be simple and easy decisions. If the city can receive $11.92 million toward the relocation of the railroad siding that removes the stalled trains that block traffic on center street, when combined with other pledges from the county and elsewhere, the city’s cost for that project would only be $710,000. That sounds like a bargain. As far as the money for Kyle Crossing and Post Road, I’ve been told that federal funds to defray the costs on those projects are probably a long shot.

That leaves Burleson and Lehman and that’s where the moral debate comes in because, Mayor Travis Mitchell said today, if those moneys are approved by CAMPO, it would mean delaying work on those projects for at least a year beyond what voters were promised when they approved the sale of bonds to finance those road projects, and others, more than four years ago. On the other hand, the federal moneys mean the city could apply the bond revenue to other projects directly related to those roads, such as additional sidewalks for Lehman, additional lighting for Burleson, xeriscaping medians and Mitchell said he is a major advocate of xeriscaping. The leftover funds could even be used to help pay down the debt incurred by sale of the bonds, thus increasing the capacity for future capital improvement projects that could be funded by General Obligation bonds without triggering a property tax increase.

Mitchell even said one more option is available: the city could take a proposal back to the voters seeking permission to use those suddenly available funds on other projects unrelated to the ones approved for in the original bond sale — perhaps the Post Road or the Kyle Crossing projects, which are already part of the city’s five-year Capital Improvement Plan. The political gamble of that however is whether voters would be agreeable to renegotiating the use of that bond money after the city decided not to keep its promise on when to complete the Lehman and Burleson projects. It all comes down to trust.

The reasons why the Burleson and Lehman projects would need to be delayed if the city seeks CAMPO money to complete the projects is twofold: First and foremost, the money won’t be available until sometime in 2019 — most likely around the middle of that year — and, second, because federal dollars are involved, more extensive environmental impact studies will have to be conducted on both projects. Mitchell estimated the delay on starting the Lehman Road project could be between five and six months and the additional EPA studies could delay it for another18 months. Construction on Burleson probably would not begin until May 2019, he said.

CAMPO will announce next May which projects are being funded, according to Mitchell.

Citizens may weigh in on the matter — whether the city should get the feds to defray the costs of these two road projects or simply forget outside funds and get these two road projects completed when originally promised — during the Citizen Comments period at the beginning of Tuesday’s council session.

Incidentally, the item that follows the CAMPO request is directly related. That item would be considering whether to update the city’s Transportation Master Plan to include relocating the Center Street Railroad siding. Mitchell said this is strictly a formality because all projects approved for CAMPO funding must be a part of a Transportation Master Plan. The mayor also said that even though the map that accompanies this item suggests the relocated siding could cause stopped trains to block Kohlers Crossing, the siding is sufficient to accommodate the longest possible freight train to ever use that line without blocking traffic on Kohlers. In fact, he suggested, that map may not be 100 percent accurate.

Other items on Tuesday’s agenda include:

• The appointments from the new council members for the city’s Ethics Commission.
• The appointment of engineer Paul Scheibmeir to fill the Planning & Zoning Commission vacancy created when P&Z Chair Dex Ellison was elected to the City Council.
• A resolution to suspend for 90 days a proposed 11.9% rate increase sought by Centerpoint Gas, which, according to city officials, provides natural gas to approximately 8,000 residential customers in Kyle, 318 "small volume" commercial customers, and one "large commercial customer."
• A proposal to spend $216,188.68 to buy one of these for the Stormwater Utility.
• A recommendation on zoning for a multi-family/retail services development on Windy Hill Road that was delayed during the last council meeting in order to obtain a legal opinion on whether the project was already allowed because of a previous agreement the property’s owner signed with Hays County prior to its annexation into the city. Several council members expressed concern at that last meeting about the impact the development would have on Windy Hill Road traffic.