I find it difficult not to think in culinary terms when pondering Tuesday’s City Council agenda with the appetizer being those imaginary phantom trails that are supposed to connect Kyle to neighboring cities but really don’t, the main courses offering annexations and short-term rental studies with a desert being what appears to be another look at a controversial zoning decision but we won’t know for sure because that dish will be served in private.
To add a little more intrigue, there have been some additions and deletions since the agenda was first posted at the end of business Thursday.
In April 2016, the City Council approved annexing close to 10,000 acres located along what was then the southern and western edges of the city limits. However, in somewhat of a convoluted deal, the owners of 15 properties included in the annexed area signed development agreements that exempted them from having to pay city taxes (and also kept them off voter rolls for city elections) as long as those properties were not altered in any fashion. Their moral argument was that they had purchased these properties so they could enjoy "the idyllic rustic, rural lifestyle far from the madding crowds of urbanization" and didn’t want any politicians forcing them to do otherwise. Of course, there was also the benefit of receiving all those city services without having to pay for them. Throughout all of this, however, was the lure of financial windfalls trumping the moral arguments.
Whether that lure is what convinced one of those 15 property owners, Tom and Mary Ayers, to sell their 17.19 acres located at 1001 South Sledge Street is unknown. What is known is that they did, in fact, sell that land to Thunder Horse Development LLC, which, according to its website, is "a real estate development company in the Austin, Texas Hill Country Area with a focus on developing residential lots to sell to home builders." In a letter to the city, C. Michael Bowen, Jr., the president of Thunder Horse, said the company purchased the property with the intention to develop single-family residential lots on those 17.19 acres. "The plan is to build a subdivision that offers lots such that a homebuilder can build homes in the $250-350K price range," Bowen wrote.
Since a collection of single-family residential lots is, of course, an alteration to "the idyllic rustic, rural lifestyle far from the madding crowds of urbanization," it triggers an automatic voluntary annexation which is the reason Item 14 is on Tuesday’s agenda and also the reason why it shouldn’t provoke any substantial discussion, even though a public hearing is attached to the item (which probably means a few diehards from the old guard will speak out against it). Actually, a public hearing on this annexation is not required, according to the Development Agreement and the Texas Local Government Code, but, as Planning and Community Development Director Howard J. Koontz wrote "the City of Kyle has found that it is in the best interest to exceed minimum requirements to allow the public an opportunity to voice any concerns or support relating to the annexation."
So while it is known that the sale of this land is what prompted Item 14, the reasons behind Item 18, "consider and possible action to direct (the) Planning and Zoning Commission to gather public input and conduct (a) short term rental study," are somewhat murkier. I reached out to Mayor Travis Mitchell, who placed the item on the agenda, and he said he would prefer to have the opportunity to discuss this with fellow council members before making his motivations public. However, Mitchell did direct me to a recent article in the Hays Free Press that surveyed what actions other cities in Hays County were taking to regulate short-term rentals. That story said Mayor Mitchell "after receiving a few resident complaints a few months ago regarding a neighbor’s short-term rental, the city started an information campaign alerting residents via their utility bills that they cannot operate short-term rentals within the city limits. Mitchell said the city crafts residential ordinances around residential living and that a conversation regarding regulating short-term rentals has not happened yet because city officials have not seen a demand for it yet. ‘It’s not explicitly prohibited but I personally think it’s a gray area,’ Mitchell said," according to the article. I’m guessing now Mitchell considers the idea has shifted through one or more of the 50 shades of gray.
Personally, I never thought of Kyle as that much of a tourist destination, but I was surprised to the level of being somewhat shocked yesterday when I went on Airbnb’s website and found far more listings for short-term rentals in Kyle than I anticipated. So it would appear that some form of study on this subject is warranted and P&Z seems as capable of conducting it and making some recommendations to council as anyone. (Full disclosure: for those who are unaware of this fact, I am a member of the Planning & Zoning Commission.)
What is labeled as 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" was supposed to take place last month, but a winter storm forced its postponement. The key word in the above description is "proposed" because right now this is nothing more than pipe dream conceived by some well-meaning environmentalists and executed by geography students from Texas State much to the shock and surprise of property owners who had absolutely no clue that these folks planned to possibly put a trail through their land until they saw the maps. And, if you look at the maps, it’s easy to see immediately that the proposed trail routes do seem to connect Austin to San Marcos. But they are all located significantly north and west of Kyle. For the life of me, I can’t see any reason why the city would want to devote much energy, let alone financial assistance, to this endeavor when there is a dire need for a heavy investment in a hike/bike trail infrastructure right here in the city.
All this reminds me of a plan that was afoot when I first relocated here nearly four years ago and that was this foolish idea, I think it was called Lone Star Rail, to develop a commuter heavy rail mass transit system on the Southern Pacific rail line, compelling SP to shift its line to the eastern side of I-35. Fortunately, that plan died. However, a far less expensive and far more useful proposition would be to create a regional group that could purchase that rail line between San Antonio and a point north of Austin and convert it into a hike/bike trail that could serve as a spine for municipal hike/bike trails in local communities along the trail. Now, that would be something.
But I digress. Two — count ‘em, two — executive sessions are planned for Tuesday’s meeting. The first, scheduled to take place immediately after the opening citizen comments period, could actually produce the revelation of what law firm could be representing the city’s legal matters. The traditional executive session — the one near the end of the meeting — includes the tantalizing mention of "pending or contemplated litigation or to seek the advice of the city attorney" on the subject of "Windy Hill Zoning." Of course, anything to do with executive sessions are, by definition, hush-hush but I can’t help but speculate this involves that controversial decision the council made to deny a multi-family zoning request on Windy Hill. When it first came up for discussion last Dec. 5, it appeared the council was set to oppose it until City Attorney Frank Garza held a special executive session with council members after which they voted 6-1 to approve it. Then, during the council’s Jan. 3 meeting, Garza reversed his opinion on whether the council had the legal liberty to oppose the zoning and the council voted unanimously to deny the request. Garza admitted to me at the time, however, no case law existed to support his argument. So I can’t help but wonder whether some new information has come to light that might have caused another interpretation of the Texas Local Government Code on the matter, hence the item included in Tuesday’s second executive session.
What’s missing from either executive session is any mention of the "Jesse Espinoza Lawsuit" that was supposed to be part of the council’s Jan. 11 executive session. However, Garza told me that item wasn’t discussed at that time because the city had not received a copy of the lawsuit in which Espinoza claims his indefinite suspension from the Kyle Police Department was the result of racial discrimination. I can’t help but wonder whether the fact that no mention of this lawsuit is made on this agenda means the city still hasn’t received notice of the legal action or possibly whether it’s because the lawsuit has been withdrawn or dismissed. I’m not an attorney. I haven’t even played one on television. But it was an interim police chief who dismissed Espinoza, the only dismissal from the Kyle police force handed down by this person and I can’t see how a pattern of discrimination can be determined by just one action. But, like I said, I’m no attorney.
The late addition to this week’s agenda involves an item that would allow a fifth ex-officio (i.e., non-voting) member on the city’s Economic Development Board, a position that would be reserved for a representative from the Hays school district. The deletion was a portion of the city manager’s report dealing with an update on the provisions of a loan agreement the council approved to RSI, Inc., in September 2016, "We neglected to go over the information we received with Hays County (as they are part of the agreement) and would like to do this prior to any public updates," City Manager Scott Sellers graciously volunteered to me yesterday. I have been looking forward to this update because the agreement included the expectations that RSI would hire seven new employees in 2017 and it would be interesting to learn if those expectations had been met or possibly even exceeded.
No comments:
Post a Comment