City Manager Scott Sellers formally unveiled today his $84.9 billion budget recommendation for the upcoming fiscal year — a proposal he described as "fantastic" — that contains (as far as I can see) nothing that could be called frivolous, maintains the current property tax rate but does seek a wastewater service rate increase and concentrates on providing the funds necessary to guarantee the city’s water supply, to expand its wastewater capabilities and accelerate street reconstruction and maintenance.
"Kudos to the staff," Mayor Pro Tem Shane Arabie said at the conclusion of Sellers’ presentation. "What was accomplished through this budget, the amount that we can accomplish because of this budget, brings us to another level of sophistication that we’ve reached as an entity and the high level of service that we are providing."
After thanking all the staff members who worked on the budget, and comparing the budget favorably to earlier budget projections for the upcoming year, Sellers said "We have brought forward a budget that is fantastic."
"There’s no better time to live in the city of Kyle than right now," the city manager said. "The quality of life is extremely high, the ability to fund quality-of-life initiatives is there and we are looking to the future in a way we’ve never been able to do in years past. To maintain the level of service that we are in this budget is truly exceptional."
According to my (albeit, unofficial) calculations, $44,137,063 — 51.99 percent of the total budget — will go towards street maintenance, the city’s water supply and wastewater upgrades in the form of new hires, equipment purchases and capital improvements. These unofficial calculations were, admittedly at a glance, seconded by the city manager just prior to his formal presentation to the council.
In that presentation, Sellers said the highlights of his budget recommendation were:
- $84.9 million total proposed budget for all city funds;
- $45.4 million in planned spending on capital (long-term) improvements in FY 2019;
- $7 million dedicated to accelerate Stagecoach Road reconstruction project;
- $19 million for the wastewater treatment plant expansion project construction;
- $1.3 million for new equipment and vehicles;
- $778,000 for 16 new full-time positions — eight in Public Works, three each in Police and Parks and one each in utility billing and information technology;
- $441,511 for technology improvements;
- A $324,201 increase for employee benefits to cover rising health insurance costs as well as merit and longevity pay increases;
- No change in the property tax, water service or storm drainage rates although, according to Sellers presentation, the current property tax rate of $.5416 per $100 of assessed valuation exceeds the rollback rate by just under a penny, .96 of a cent;
- A 10 percent overall increase in the wastewater service rate that will translate into a 3.5 percent increase — around $3.54 per month — in the average household utility bill; and
- A 3.95 percent increase in the solid waste rates to pay for the annual increases included in the city’s contract with TDS
Of the almost $1.24 million earmarked for new equipment, the bulk of it — $994,500 of it or 80.2 percent — will be going to Public Works for such items as two dump trucks, an asphalt zipper, a street sweeper, a broom roller, a tub grinder, two concrete mixers, a trench shoring box and litter abatement equipment. The total also includes $110,000 for a new radio system.
Although the tax rate remains at 54.16 cents, property owners will face higher tax bills because of an 5.47 percent increase in property valuations this year. One piece of good news for residential homeowners is that it appears Kyle’s economic development efforts are producing dividends as the residential share of the total property tax bill fell from 74.36 percent last year to 70.95 percent this year. Although Finance Director Perwez Moheet said immediately following the budget presentation this reduction was not that big a deal, both Arabie and council member Damon Fogley welcomed the change and did say the 3.4 percent drop in the residential share of the total property tax bill was "of major significance."
The city will enter the new fiscal year with a debt of $80.5 million as compared to $85.6 million at the same time last year, according to the city manager’s presentation. However, the city manager cautioned, that figure does not include the $9.5 million in new debt planned for the wastewater treatment plant expansion or the "debt issued and/or planned by ARWA (Alliance Regional Water Authority) for the city’s share of capital expenditures," namely the pipeline required to bring water from the Carrizo Springs Aquifer to Kyle.
I don’t know if there is such a thing as a "quick review" of a 200-page document, but I gave City Manager Scott Sellers’ proposed city budget for the upcoming fiscal year what I would call a "quick review" because spending too long carefully scrutinizing 200 pages of numbers quickly makes my head start spinning, my eyes start rolling and soon the hallucinations begin. I stagger around the abode like some deranged alcoholic following a 30-day bender. It’s not a pretty sight. Someone hand me a bottle of aspirin. Actually, a perfect Manhattan (straight up, not on the rocks) would be even better.
Here’s my overall quick summary — the overall impression I came away with once I began clearing away the spiderwebs in my brain caused by plowing through the document: Sellers is putting a lot of emphasis on improvements to the city’s street and wastewater infrastructure. Streets and wastewater. Those two areas seem to me to be the theme of the budget, the overriding concerns, the points of emphasis. But I’ll know better along with everyone else when Sellers formally presents the document Saturday morning to the city council.
Although the Sellers is seeking to keep the property tax rate at 54.16 cents per $100 valuation, the budget is forecasting a healthy 21.87 percent increase in property tax revenues over the current fiscal year. How much of that comes from an increase in residential property tax evaluations is yet to be known. The certified evaluations are expected from the appraisal district sometime today or tomorrow at the latest.
Accompanying that emphasis I mentioned on wastewater will be a request that the council OK a 10 percent hike in wastewater fees. There’s also going to be a 3.48 percent increase in trash collection charges that’s part of the contract the city has with Texas Disposal Systems.
The budget calls for adding 16 positions to the city’s payroll. The Public Works Department would receive the most new hires — six, including two in street construction. The budget also includes $404,000 for new street maintenance equipment, $200,000 of which would pay for something called an asphalt zipper and $130,000 for a dump truck. Sellers’ requests for new equipment also includes $250,000 for a street sweeper that would be assigned to the Drainage Utility. Parks would get three new employees, two of whom would be for park maintenance.
Sellers’ proposed General Fund budget for overall city operations and maintenance is $23.4 million, an increase of $1,575,770 (7.23 percent) from the current General Fund budget plus a CIP (Capital Improvement Projects) budget of $11.7 million.
Along with the projected 21.87 percent increase in property tax revenues, the budget is projecting a 9.95 percent in sales taxes. That could be a tad optimistic. If the projection of this year’s final tax sales tax collections is correct, it will mean a 5.6 percent increase over what was collected in the previous fiscal year and that was down from a 10.5 percent increase from the year before.
The amount the city collected in Hotel Occupancy Taxes has increased over last year, but not nearly at the amount that was expected. So far the city has collected $241,271 in Hotel Occupancy Taxes this fiscal year and expects to receive $315,000 when the year ends on Sept. 30. However, the current budget projected that final figure was going to be $437,910. Sellers’ proposed budget predicts collecting $320,000 in Hotel Occupancy Taxes during the next fiscal year, 26.92 percent less than what was projected for the current fiscal year. Of course, that number could increase if the city takes action that permits it to collect these taxes from short term rentals, which is already required by state law.
The way I read it, the Engineering Department is the one receiving the largest monetary increase — $1.5 million — over last year with Police receiving the second largest ($841,422) and Public Works the third most ($594,167). In terms of percentages, Community Development’s 16.9 percent increase outpaced all other departments followed by Parks and Recreation (13.34 percent) and Police (12.66 percent).
The budget proposal calls for a $1.80-per-month increase in the residential wastewater fee for those living in the city limits, from $17.99 per month to $19.79. For those outside the city limits, the fee would increase from $24.28 to $26.71. Sewer fees are also targeted for an increase, from $3.48 per 1,000 gallons of water used to $3.83 for those in the city limits and from $4.70 to $5.17 for those outside.
The five-year CIP budget always includes a host of interesting nuggets and the one Sellers’ included in this budget proposal is no exception. Some of the highlights include (all expenses are for 2019 unless otherwise noted):
-
$10 million in 2019 and $7 million in 2020 for the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant that will come from the city issuing Certificates of Obligation. (The CIP also includes $250,000 in 2019 and $100,000 in 2020 for the engineering for the expansion to increase the plant’s capacity from 3 to 4.5 million gallons a day.)
- $8.18 million in 2019, $10.6 million in 2020, $14.3 million in 2021 and $14.2 million in 2022 for the ARWA water supply.
- $5 million in 2019 and $3.5 million in 2020 to complete the Lehman Road bond project.
- $4 million in 2019 and $3 million in 2020 to complete the North Burleson Street bond project
- $3.8 million in 2019 and $2.6 million in 2020 for the Southside Wastewater Collection System (funded by wastewater impact fees).
- $2.5 million in 2019 for engineering and $4.5 million in 2020 for construction of North Old Stagecoach, the project Mayor Travis Mitchell revealed during this State of the City address earlier this week.
- $1 million for Kyle Vista Park
- $900,000 to complete the Marketplace Extension bond project
- $800.000 in 2019 and $480,000 in 2020 for Kyle Crossing improvements,
- $500,000 in each of the next five years for street improvements.
- $250,000 for the Ash Pavilion Roller Rink.
- $100,000 to complete the construction of the quiet zones at the Center and South Street railroad crossings
The first public hearing on the proposed budget is scheduled for 7 p.m. Aug. 14 with the second one planned for the same time a week later. An electronic copy of the proposed budget will be posted Monday on the city’s web site and printed copies may be reviewed beginning Monday at City Hall and the Kyle Public Library.
Mayor Travis Mitchell announced today the city’s upcoming budget, which will be formally premiered Saturday morning, will include a $3.54 per month wastewater fee increase as well as cash funding for the reconstruction of the entirety of North Old Stagecoach Road. He also said the City Council will receive "in a few months" plans for the creation of a TIF District to help fund the Uptown mixed-use development to be located north of the Performing Arts Center.
Long-time readers may recognize that I have been advocating for the creation of TIFs in general and specifically one for this area north of Kohlers Crossing for more than three years, but, up until now, that suggestion has seemingly fell on deaf ears. Simply put, TIF Districts receive their funding through the increases in property taxes resulting from the development within the boundaries of the district. It creates an incentive for the best possible development.
Mitchell, who up until recently was not a supporter of the TIF concept, told the attendees of today’s Kyle Chamber of Commerce’s State of the City address luncheon, that his opinion was swayed during a recent tour "of other cities to view the very best they had to offer in mixed use development." Now, to his credit, although up until now Mitchell has never expressed a desire for the creation of TIF districts, he has been, at least for as long as I’ve known him, a supporter of, as he said in his address today, "a vibrant community (that) can be achieved through a concentrated mixture of land uses intentionally designed for residents to live, work and play all within walking distance" — what is known as the "Strong Towns" concept.
Mitchell said his tour of cities, most of which were either north of the Dallas/Fort Worth area or southeast of Houston — although, he said, one of these trips took him to Greenville, S.C. — were "all in an effort to understand how some of the most iconic and vibrant mixed-use developments came to exist." He said that he learned that "in a few of the most successful examples the city created a Tax Increment Financing District or TIF to generate revenue for public amenities from within the development itself..
"Well," the mayor said, "we have found such an opportunity right here in Kyle. It’s currently called Uptown, a 137-acre parcel of land behind the Performing Arts Center. It has existed as a concept for years. Folks who moved into Plum Creek might have had it pitched to them as a future development that would have sit-down restaurants, boutique retail, destination retail, playscapes, parks, a conference center, a sports venue, parking garages, wide sidewalks and more. In a few months the city council will receive a proposal to finally kickstart Uptown by creating the second TIF district in Kyle."
Mitchell said the money created by the TIF will be used to pay for "public improvements designed to benefit the whole city … 20-foot sidewalks in front of restaurants, parking garages, public parks, decorative lighting and more."
In announcing the plans for this mixed-use development, Mitchell said he was not abandoning the city’s downtown area. "Uptown is a project that will develop not as a replacement, but as an addition to our downtown community," he maintained.
Mitchell said the city must look beyond developing "apartment complexes and housing with very little retail and pursue a development that can elevate the development trajectory in Kyle forever.
"My vision for Kyle," the mayor proclaimed, "is to once and for all shed the stigma that we are simply a bedroom community lost in the sea of endless sprawl."
Mitchell, calling the proposed hike in wastewater fees "a good increase," said it was needed to fund the expansion of the city’s wastewater treatment plant. He also said the increase was lower than what had been anticipated. "What was originally a $26 million expansion that would require a $20 million bond and a $7-per-month rate increase has been reduced to a $19 million plant with a $9.5 million bond and a $3.54 rate increase, which translates into roughly 3.5 percent increase in the average utility bill," the mayor said.
Mitchell noted that this would be the first wastewater fee increase since 2014 and that the lower price tag for the expansion came through developer contributions and the city’s engagement of "several engineering firms to find ways to reduce the cost of the expansion without sacrificing quality or capacity."
After reviewing for the luncheon attendees many of the current road projects underway in the city, Mitchell announced "We have secured enough money through developer contributions and savings to immediately cash fund a $7 million project for both the engineering and construction of North Old Stagecoach Road from the Walgreens at 150 bending south behind Hometown Kyle to Center Street and then along Center Street from Stagecoach Road to Rebel Drive next to Los Vaqueros Café. The entire project funded with cash."
Mitchell said the project will take a year to engineer and another 18 months for construction, so, if all goes according to plan, this project should be completed sometime in mid-2021, by which time, the mayor said, the city’s population will be in excess of 50,000.
City Engineer Leon Barba last night warned motorists that for about a year and a half, beginning shortly after Labor Day, driving on North Burleson Street will likely be "painful for our citizens" due the reconstruction activities taking place along that thoroughfare.
Two projects — the widening of Burleson and extending Marketplace Avenue from Burleson to the southbound I-35 frontage road — will begin almost simultaneously, Barba said, with the Marketplace project finishing much sooner than the Burleson repairs. In addition, once the project is complete, Burleson will end at a cul-de-sac just south of the low water crossing, thus eliminating the direct access to Burleson from the frontage road, the site of numerous traffic accidents including at least one fatality.
Barba told the City Council last night that the original estimate for the Burleson Street project, one of a handful of major road repairs Kyle voters signed off on with the approval of a bond package in 2013, was $8.1 million. The winning bid, he said, was $6.6 million and last night the council approved in a 5-0 vote (council members Damon Fogley and Daphne Tenorio missed last night’s meeting) awarding a contact not to exceed $6.9 million to M.A. Smith, an Austin-based contractor. The second lowest bid, Barba said, was $7.6 million, The reason for a contract amount that’s higher than the bid amount is that the contract includes a 5 percent contingency to cover, in Barba’s words, "surprises we didn’t anticipate."
"We did check on the credentials for the (winning) contractor," Barba said. "The contractor actually did a project for the city of Kyle — the wastewater line that led to ACC and, according to inspectors, they did a great job."
Barba said he expects work on the project to begin "right after Labor Day" at the southwest corner of the City Square and be completed sometime "in the spring of 2020." He also said the fork in the southbound frontage road that currently allows for a direct access to Burleson will remain "open" until the cul-de-sac is completed even though the Marketplace Avenue access will also be an available alternative as soon as right around the first of the year.
"Out contractor that’s going to be working on Burleson Street is going to have some big issues to work with," Barba said. "He’s got some small businesses that need all the business that they can get and we’re going to be closing sections of the road along that area. As we move on down the road toward the roundabout there’s sections of road that we’ll be closing also. It’s going to be painful for our citizens because of this construction. We’re estimating 15 to 18 months on that project so it’s going to be a painful process as we go through building that road."
He also said the railroad crossing at Burleson will be rebuilt by a contractor hired by the railroad and it is planned that its work will be completed right about the time the city’s contractor work on Burleson reaches the crossing. "There’s a big coordination project involved with that," Barba said.
The city’s engineer said the original estimate to extend Marketplace to I-35 was $800,000 and the bids came in considerably below that with a $613,244.73 contract approved, again by a 5-0 vote, last night.
"We plan to start this one in September also so we can get it knocked out before the end of the year," Barba told the council. "If weather permits, that could happen, but with the weather and the holidays we’re thinking that by January or February at the most we’ll see that road opened up."
Barba said the city is in discussions with the Texas Department of Transportation concerning installing a deceleration lane along the southbound I-35 frontage road leading to the Marketplace intersection. "That takes time to get that done," Barba said, which means that for the foreseeable future a 90-degree more or less turn off a road with a posted speed limit of 50 miles an hour, arguably not that much safer than the current configuration.
It happens every year on the last Saturday of July. The city council, the city manager, the finance director, various city department heads, the assistant city manager and the chief of staff gather around some tables grouped together in the council’s City Hall chambers to see and hear the first public presentation of the city manager’s proposed budget for the fiscal year that will begin in a little more than two months following the presentation. This will not be the council’s first view of the budget — the individual council members will receive a copy of it at the beginning of that week — but this will be the first time they will congregate as a body to talk about it and, of course, it will be the public’s first exposure to the city’s most important annual presentation. Which reminds me of a problem I have with the way the council conducts citizen comments during council meetings and the way the council’s agenda is arranged, but I’ll get back to that.
This year the last Saturday in July is on the 28th and that’s why, if you look at the meetings section of the city’s web page you will find a listing for a "Kyle Special City Council Meeting" scheduled for 8 a.m. on that day. But this year, that special 8 a.m. meeting on the last Saturday in July is going to include more than just a discussion of the manager’s proposed budget. It’s going to include annexations as well.
According to notices that appeared in this week’s edition of the Hays Free Press, the council will host the second public hearings on four proposed annexations totaling 259.59 acres. Granted, a total of 259.59 acres is not a lot to annex — about .4 of a square mile — so an 8 a.m. on a Saturday time is not going to inconvenience that many — if any — citizens who want to testify at said hearings. But, still, it’s interesting that the second public hearings on these four annexations will be held during what normally is a meeting reserved exclusively to discuss the proposed budget.
Which brings me back to the first of the two topics I said above I would return to, specifically, the way the council conducts citizen comments. These are always held at the beginning of each council meeting and there’s nothing wrong with that. However, if the council really desired to solicit meaningful comments from its citizens it would also include on its agenda a citizens comment period at the end of the meetings as well. And the upcoming annexation-budget "Kyle Special City Council Meeting" on the 28th is a perfect example of why a second comments section should be included. Although an agenda for this meeting hasn’t been posted it’s reasonable to assume it will feature, most likely, in this order 1. Citizens comments period; 2. Annexation public hearings and 3. Budget presentation. But how in heaven’s name are citizens going to be able to comment on the most important item of this meeting — the proposed budget — before they have any idea of what’s in the budget proposal? And they won’t know that until after the one and only citizens comments period has ended. This is compounded by the fact that the Kyle City Council is composed of individuals who, by design, do not take the initiative they should to inform constituents of the contents of the city manager’s proposed budget. I have spent the last four years attempting to shame council members into hosting budget town hall meetings, but to no avail. These folks feel no obligation towards keeping their constituents informed on the most important decisions they will make as council members or to seek input from their constituents about those decisions. I was talking with Jerry Hendrix, the city’s chief of staff, yesterday on a completely different subject (specifically mobility management when the city reaches a population over 100,000, expected in 22 years) and he said the city would do what it could to facilitate such budget town hall meetings — going so far as to design and produce a budget presentation slide show that could be featured at the meetings — but no council member has even inquired about one. Of course it can be argued that the council will hold four additional meetings on the budget — public hearings on Aug. 14 and Aug. 21, and formal budget adoption readings on Aug. 28 and Sept. 4 — and the public can make their opinions on the budget known on these occasions. But these meetings require the citizenry to come to the council; why does the council feel it doesn’t need to take the message out to the citizenry?
What makes this even more criminal is that every so often a council member will don their dunce cap, swallow another stupid pill and proclaim "We need to make sure our citizens are aware of this," whatever the particular "this" happens to be at that moment. They seem to think there’s this magic wand that is somehow going to be waved infusing widespread knowledge into the cranium of every resident in the city. Don’t they realize that they — the council members themselves — are the citizens’ link to their city government, the conduit for the transfer of information and knowledge? That one of the principle things they were elected to do was to keep those folks who voted for them informed about what’s going on at City Hall? How badly they have shirked this responsibility would be laughable if it didn’t border on criminally negligent. Unfortunately, they look upon public service as an opportunity to grandstand, but not to serve and inform.
The argument I have heard from one or more council members against having such a townhall meeting is that not many constituents would show up, which is tantamount to the ball player saying he doesn’t want to step up to the plate because he knows he’s going to strike out anyway. But it’s true. If a council member doesn’t put some effort into making the meeting a success, it might not be one. And, at first, perhaps only a dozen folks might show up to the meeting. But I’ve seen this happen many times before. Word starts getting around about how valuable these meetings are and then two dozen show up at the next one because "it’s the place to be." Then four dozen come to the one after that and before you know it, you have SRO crowds. Not only that, two council members could jointly co-sponsor one or more such meetings and, with each working their own constituency, attract a more significant crowd than by going it alone. So, yes, it does take effort to make these things work, but "effort" seems to be a dirty word at council chambers.
The second thing I said I would get back around to is the way the council agenda is arranged and, for once, the council has almost done a better job of arranging the agenda for this Tuesday’s meeting than at any time I can remember. My question is whether this might be just a one-off success tied to the proposed annexations.
Like I said earlier, the meeting on the 28th is for the second public hearings on the proposed annexations, and, if you’re wondering when the first of those public hearings are supposed to come along, the answer to that is they are on Tuesday’s agenda which correctly groups them all together under the heading of "Public Hearing" (to be grammatically correct, it should be plural "Hearings," but, hey, this is a step in the right direction here.) There will, of course, be one public hearing for each of the four proposed annexations and, like I said, I don’t expect them to attract that many speakers because it’s not going to directly affect that many people. I expect Lila Knight to speak at least one of the hearings to once again say the city needs an Annexation Plan which, in the case of these annexations, is not true because, as Section 43.052 (h)(1) of the Local Texas Government Code clearly states an Annexation Plan is not required if the area to be annexed "contains fewer than 100 separate tracts of land on which one or more residential dwellings are located on each tract." That means these four areas are definitely exempt from needing an Annexation Plan.
So it’s not that the public hearings will draw any meaningful contributions, it’s simply the fact they are categorized as such on the council’s agenda. But, wait. As I wrote above "the council has almost done a better job of arranging the agenda." It seems that even though there is a section on the agenda devoted to "Public Hearing" (sic), there is a rogue public hearing appearing all by its lonesome as Item 11 on the agenda. Why isn’t this item included with the other public hearings? Someone from the city will make the excuse that Item 11 has to do with a proposed natural gas franchise and not an annexation, but that’s exactly what that will be — an excuse, not a valid reason.
All future agendas should have all the public hearings grouped together and appearing on the agenda immediate following the Consent Agenda items, if there is a Consent Agenda, or, as the annexation ones are on Tuesday’s agenda, immediately following the Citizens Comments period. In that way, those citizens coming to council to speak at one of the public hearings (1) will know generally where on the agenda the hearings will appear at every meeting without having to actually review the agenda and (2), and even more importantly, those citizens wishing to speak won’t have to sit through a lot of junk waiting around for the public hearing during which they wish to speak. Will the council take this sensible step? Who knows. The fact that these council members refuse to keep their constituents informed about the most important function the council must perform — reviewing and approving a budget each year — indicates they only pay lip service to the concept of caring for their constituents.
A couple of other items worth noting on Tuesday’s council agenda:
-
It appears work is finally about to commence on the North Burleson Road bond project. Items 8-10 all involve work on or around North Burleson Road. The biggie, Item 8, is the authorization of $6.9 million for the construction of a new 42-foot-wide roadway, reconstruction and widening of North Burleson Street, water line relocations, wastewater line relocations, structure improvements, storm drain improvements, grading, base, pavement, curb and gutter, pedestrian improvements, illumination, construction of a new 8-inch wastewater line and 12-inch water line, and signing and markings for approximately 1.47 mile of roadway. Item 9 authorizes the spending of $613,244.73 for the construction of a new 42-foot-wide roadway, structure improvements, storm drain improvements, grading, base, pavement, curb and gutter, pedestrian improvements, signing and markings for approximately 800 feet of roadway extending Marketplace from Burleson to the I-35 frontage road. Item 10 authorizes the expenditure of an additional $73,344 for "construction administration, review, analysis, correction of contractor supplied material specifications, and revisions to plans during construction for N. Burleson Street and Marketplace Extension."
- The city is taking one more step in making toward making the roller hockey pavilion a reality with the first reading of an ordinance authorizing City Manager Scott Sellers to negotiate and enter into a professional services agreement for the design of the cement pavilion; authorizing the use of a Buy Board contractor to construct the cement hockey pavilion; and authorizing and directing Sellers to negotiate and bring back for city council an agreement with a Buy Board contractor for the construction of the pavilion. "As planning of this community project is getting underway, having the engineering firm and the contractor involved from the very beginning will save the city time and money," according to the agenda. "This process meets (the) state's and city's purchase policies for competitive bids. For a unique project involving many volunteers, in-kind donations and several different construction-industry participants, this is a preferred method to deliver a quality project."
Forget commuter rail. That’s a 19th Century solution to a 21st Century problem. This is the type of a travel we should be looking at. A trip from Austin to San Antonio? 13 minutes. From Austin to Dallas? 25 minutes. Austin to Los Angeles? Two hours and 17 minutes. Sound far-fetched? Yeah, like driverless cars.
Rain ain’t gonna cancel Kyle’s fireworks show. No, sirree, Bob. The rain might delay blast-off for as long as 24 hours, but dang it, the big bang is going to come off no matter what Mother Nature tries to do to prevent it.
That’s the word from City Manager Scott Sellers, who, in the most newsworthy moments of an otherwise drab (albeit, comparatively short) City Council meeting tonight, informed the city’s political leaders that nothing is going to stand in the way of the city shooting off some fireworks. But he also reminded the good folks in attendance and those watching from afar that the city’s men and women in blue will try to stand in the way of regular civilians armed with matches and firecrackers purchased from the neighborhood Open One Day Only Freeway Fireworks Emporium.
"Tomorrow night, we’ll be lighting our fireworks, weather permitting," Sellers said. "So, if you take a look at the forecast for tomorrow it’s supposed to rain most of the day. Not sure if that’s changed. However, it looks like it may be tapering off around the time that we’re going to be light the fireworks, around 9:30. So, weather permitting, we will still have our event at 9:30. If it’s a light drizzle, we’ll still light them off. If it is pouring rain, or thunder and lightning, we will hopefully wait out the storm. If it doesn’t look like that storm will pass then we may have to postpone to the following night."
Sellers said the city will be updating its Facebook page "constantly throughout the day" tomorrow for those wondering about the celebration’s status. The city manager also promised tomorrow night’s show "will be the largest we’ve done — a full 30 minutes
— definitely worth coming to."
The event takes place on the Plum Creek Golf Course and the home staging area is the Performing Arts Center on Kyle Parkway and Kohlers Crossing. "There’s not a bad seat in the house," the city manager bragged.
Sellers said Kyle Police along with employees from Public Works and the Parks Department will be out and about tomorrow night "aggressively enforcing" the city’s ban on citizens setting off fireworks.
I don’t know all that much about Lennar Homes except what I read in the financial news and what I see on the ground. What I read in the financial news is good. What I see on the ground is not so good.
First the good. Lennar Corp.’s revenue and earnings per share both topped the highest of expectations, it was reported just last week, and its new home orders surged 62 percent compared to the same period last year. The national average for new home orders is a plus 55 percent. "Even with questions about rising interest rates, labor shortages, rising construction cost, and the macro international trade tensions, the housing market has remained resilient," Lennar Chairman Stuart Miller was quoted as saying on the company’s earnings call this past Tuesday. "There continues to be a general sense of optimism in the market."
Lennar’s shares climbed as much as 9.5 percent to $53.87 in New York trading, helping the Miami-based homebuilder bounce back from months of performances generally described as "lackluster." The stock had dropped 22 percent this year through the close of the markets last Monday. Lennar’s "orders and margins exceeded projections while management’s commentary was upbeat, noting strong housing fundamentals and an ability to manage higher interest rates and construction costs," Jade Rahmani, an analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, wrote in a note to clients. "We expect a positive reaction."
So much for the good news. Now about that product on the ground, which can be seen in the Cool Springs subdivision off Highway 150 east of I-35 and which is represented in the home pictured here — exactly the style of home Kyle officials want to see a whole lot less of: front-loaded, garage-dominated structures.
And now Lennar is preparing to build a whole bunch of new homes in a rather large residential development known as Plum Creek North planned between 1626 and Jack Hays Trail north of Kohlers Crossing.
Which could be the reason why Item No. 11, labeled as "Addendum Number 4 to the Plum Creek Development Agreement with Lennar Homes for Plum Creek North," is part of Tuesday’s city council agenda. This development agreement states quite emphatically "The City of Kyle will have the authority to deny any building permit that does not conform to the design standards contained in this document." So there.
Specifically, the development agreement calls for the creation of something called the Plum Creek North Design Committee the purpose of which is "to review the design standards contained in this document."
Now the "design standards contained in this document" appear to be exactly what is outlined in the city’s Design Guide which specifically states that the garage-dominated homes like the ones Lennar built in Cool Springs are now a ‘no-no" in Kyle and if Lennar dares try to build one of these ugly ducklings in this Plum Creek subdivision, the PCNDC will inflict its wrath upon thee. According to the agreement, the PCNDC is going to consist of four persons — two to be appointed by City Manager Scott Sellers and the other two by Lennar — and each one of the committee members must be either a professional engineer, a land planner, a landscape architect, any other kind of architect, or a land use attorney and they must have five years worth of credentialed experience in their chosen profession. It also states "No member of the PCNDC may be: (a) an employee of the Master Developer or employee of elected official of the City of Kyle, or (b) a resident or property owner of Plum Creek Section 1 or Plum Creek North." This prohibition makes no sense to me unless the word "of" between "employee" and "elected official" should actually be the word "or." Then it makes sense because I really don’t know that any elected official of the city has an employee, per se. But this is only the beginning of the confusion created by this document.
Of course if you think additional confusion could be caused by a four-member committee being perpetually deadlocked by 2-2 votes, fear not. If Lennar wanted to deviate from the city’s Design Guide, as I understand this document, it would need to obtain a variance from the PCNDC and the only way such a variance would be approved is by a unanimous vote from all four members.
So, at first glance, it would seem that this PCNDC would have final say over what each and every home Lennar wanted to build in Plum Creek North looked like. But, as the Ralph Fiennes character in the movie Hail, Caesar! tried to teach the Alden Ehrenreich character say "Would that it were so simple."
See, the agreement also calls for the creation of something called the Architectural Review Committee. According to the agreement "Each new residential unit in Plum Creek North will be subject to such additional design criteria that will be detailed in design guidelines to be described in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs) enforced by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) which will be created pursuant to the CCRs."
By the time I got to this part of the agreement, my head was spinning. What or who has the final say into what these homes will look like — the Design Guide, the Plum Creek North Design Committee or the Architectural Review Committee?
But wait, There’s more. The agreement also states "A Master Homeowner Association shall be created and maintained for the community, empowered to govern and establish design guidelines, review architectural and landscape designs and enforce regulations and design guidelines."
By now, I’m thinking this has got to be a joke. The city is trying to put one over on us. Perhaps this entire agreement was written on April 1. So on Friday I dashed off the following e-mail to city spokesperson Kim Hilsenbeck:
"I am curious about that proposed Plum Creek North Design Committee that is outlined in Exhibit B of Item 11 on Tuesday's City Council Agenda. If I understand it correctly, this will be a four-person committee whose purpose is ‘to review the design standards contained in this document.’ What does that mean? Must it approve the design of any and all residential structures erected in this community or is it in place only to grant variances for those structures that don't adhere to the city's Design Guide?
"It says two of the four members of the board will be appointed by the City Manager, but it doesn't specify that those appointees be city employees. Does the city manager plan to appoint city staff members or will he be looking outside City Hall for possible appointees to the PCNDC?
"What will be the difference in the duties of this PCNDC and the Architectural Review Committee that is also called for in this item?
"The provisions of this item also state ‘The City of Kyle will have the authority to deny a building permit that does not conform to the design standards contained in this document.’ How does that authority either conflict or co-exist alongside the PCNDC?
"It also states ‘A Master Homeowner Association shall be created and maintained for the community, empowered to govern and establish design guidelines, review architectural and landscape designs and enforce regulations and design guidelines.’ What happens if a ruling by this Master Homeowner Association directly conflicts the city's denial of a building permit which, in turn, conflicts with a decision from the PCNDC, that is directly opposite of a decision from the Architectural Review Committee? Who has the ultimate authority here?
"In short, what say or veto power do each of these entities — the Plum Creek North Development Committee, the Architectural Review Committee, the City of Kyle, and the Master Homeowner Association — have in the design of the homes, either single or multi-family, planned for this development.
"Thanks for helping me make sense of all this."
I have yet to receive a reply to this e-mail. I’m attributing it to this.
