The mayor is maintaining silence about the reasons behind this movie ("We will not comment on item 4 at this time," he told me when I asked why it was appearing on Tuesday’s meeting agenda), but, of course, that’s not going to stop me from engaging in speculation based strictly on my own hunches and instincts.
I wondered why the council approved Tenorio on the board based on her past public criticisms of ARWA, but mainly because of her response to council member Tracy Scheel who asked her during the Jan. 9 council meeting why she wanted to be a member of the board.
"I met with a water person about big bills coming from this area," Tenorio said at the time. "I want to understand the processes of why these bills are so high. These bills that are coming from this board are affecting all of our families directly, Most people don’t realize how high their water bills are about to go."
From that response, it’s difficult to determine exactly what "bills" she is talking about, but I presume she is referring to the monthly bills Kyle residents receive to pay for the water they use. And if that’s the case, here’s the concern: ARWA has nothing whatsoever to do with these bills. Yes, it is true that ARWA has secured the rights to water in the Carrizo Springs Aquifer and will be constructing a system to ship that water to its members, one of which is Kyle. And, yes, it is true that there is a cost for that water and that system and Kyle is responsible for paying its share of that cost. But that share has already been determined and agreed upon by all parties so that does not appear to be a debatable issue. And, yes, the city has talked about paying for its share through a water bill rate hike. But that’s a decision for the Kyle City Council to make. It’s not up to ARWA to decide how Kyle will finance its share of the project costs. For example, the city’s Financial
So my concern at the time Tenorio was approved was whether she understood exactly what the function and the jurisdiction of the ARWA board was and what the responsibilities would be of Kyle’s representative on that board. In my mind, the main responsibility is to make sure Kyle gets its fair share of the water coming from Carrizo Springs. But nowhere in her response to Scheel’s question did I hear Tenorio say anything like "I want to represent and protect the best interests and the future water needs of our city" or that "I want to work with other board members to see how we can keep costs under control."
(Updated Sunday 12:07 p.m.) Tenorio told me moments ago the bills she was referring to are those the city will have to pay for its share of the project.
Council member Shane Arabie, who is Kyle’s other representative on the ARWA board, missed the Jan. 9 meeting because his work these days has him spending a lot of time on the western fringes of Houston. Hopefully, he will be able to make this Tuesday’s meeting because I, for one, would love to hear his views on the Tenorio appointment. He is someone who could either calm or further stoke my fears concerning this appointment. And perhaps the only reason Mitchell wants to reconsider the appointment is because Arabie has already assured the mayor he will be attending Tuesday and Mitchell is seeking Arabie’s public input as well. However, I actually think Mitchell’s motivation has more to do with the fact that he really wants to serve on the ARWA board and he feels the council pulled the chair out from under him just as he was about to sit in it. That is also just a hunch — I have no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise — to support that notion, but it’s still a persistent part of my thought processes as I think about what’s going on here. I guess we’ll all learn more about this Tuesday.
But back to those fountains and those trails.
Item 9 on Tuesday’s agenda is to spend $49,895 for the first phase of what Parks and Rec Director Kerry Urbanowicz says will ultimate be a $150,000 facility consisting of essentially two fenced-in dog parks — one for regular dogs and a second for smaller ones — to be built in Steeplechase Park. The $150,000, Urbanowicz says, will pay for a dog park that features "shade-covered benches and benches throughout the park, pervious walking trails within the park, trees and plants, dog washing station, trash cans, pet waste stations and pervious-paved parking." He said the first $50,000 is part of this fiscal year’s budget and that it will pay for "the fences, water fountains and transition zones (presumably the connection between the two dog areas); that he is hoping next year’s budget will include another $50,000 for the park; and that the final $50,000 "will come from donations, grants and partnerships from the public."
The first year costs include $28,972 for fencing, $2,344 for the gates to each of the two parks, another $2,954 for the fencing and gates at entrance to both parks and $9,970 for a pair of drinking fountains. I’m presuming it’s a drinking fountain along the lines of the one pictured here, although I have no way of knowing that. The $9,970 price tag seemed a tad high at first glance, but upon further research I guess, if you include the required concrete pad you see in this picture, it might be in the ballpark.
But what had me more excited than the water fountains, which would not spur me to drive clear across town to take my loyal canine companion to this particular facility, was the second slide in the presentation that Urbanowicz will probably show the council — the slide that, at first glance, seemed to indicate the dog park might be on the shores of a lake of some sort. My dog loves the water, She loves to plunge in and swim. That’s why she loves the beach and really enjoys the trails around the pond at Plum Creek. But every time I have taken her to a dog park — and I have taken her to more than a dozen different ones — and removed her leash, she doesn’t move, doesn’t run around, doesn’t want to engage with any of the other humans or canines there. The only exception was a dog park the City of Dallas located on the shores of White Rock Lake, She loved it there because she could jump in the lake and swim to her heart’s content. But when I inquired about that second slide in Urbanowicz’s presentation I learned from city spokesperson Kim Hilsenbeck that it "reflects the 100-year flood zone line and how we made efforts to be out of the zone as much as possible." So, maybe after a good rain, like we’ve had too many of lately …?
Item 3 on Tuesday’s agenda is captioned a "presentation by the Emerald Crown Trail Work Group on a proposed trail connecting Buda, Kyle and San Marcos to the Violet Crown Trail in Austin to the Purgatory Trail in southern Hays County." This is completely speculative. This is an idea being promoted by an organization calling itself the San Marcos Greenbelt Alliance, a 19-year-old all-volunteer non-profit group, although it goes out of its way in the presentation to say the proposed regional trail is not a SMGA project, that it is only serving as a "catalyst" for the trail’s partners (one of whom is the City of Kyle) and its stakeholders.
According to Community Impact newspaper, SMGA President Mark Taylor told Hays County commissioners Tuesday that transportation was the primary purpose of the proposed trail. "This trail will be to get people from one place to another," the newspaper quoted Taylor as telling the commissioners. "I think we will ultimately find — if we’re able to put this project together — that our communities (will be) connected more closely. That includes not just the three cities but the rural areas."
The newspaper also said that SMGA recruited geography students at Texas State University to map several proposed trails that would connect natural areas in San Marcos to the Violet Crown in South Austin. Judging from the presentation the council is expected to see Tuesday, as far as Kyle is concerned, it’s the "rural areas" and not the city itself that will be connected. All six of the proposed routes appear to be located far west of the Kyle city limits.
All this, it must be added, is nowhere close to reality. The alliance must still develop a concept/master plan, determine funding sources and talk to the landowners/developers who might be directly impacted by the trail.
For what it’s worth, the Violet Crown website states "In 2006, planning of the Violet Crown Trail began. Its purpose is to create the first regional trail system in Central Texas. After years of strategic land acquisition and planning, the first six-mile segment opened. With continued construction, the VCT is on its way to becoming the longest trail of its kind in Central Texas. Once complete the 30-mile trail will provide a unique recreational experience as it passes through the urban wildlands of the Barton Creek Wilderness Park, the City of Sunset Valley, and eventually into Hays County. Along its route the trail will connect scenic natural areas to neighborhoods, shopping centers, a library, and public parks. Passing near the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, the Violet Crown Trail will head south, winding through the rolling countryside of the City of Austin’s Water Quality Protection Lands in a uniquely natural setting."
No comments:
Post a Comment