Average local electricity bill to increase more than $10 per month

If you haven’t already received your notice in the mail that Pedernales Electric plans to raise its rates, mainly because of costs incurred from the winter storm earlier this year, expect it to arrive any day now.

In the notice, dated Aug. 25, Pedernales is informing its customers the average monthly electricity bill will increase $8.75 a month temporarily to pay for repayment of debts it incurred because of the storm and another $1.60 a month, probably permanently, to pay for what the cooperative says is the result of increased construction costs.

It also said it will not be spending any money on infrastructure to improve the delivery of electricity to customers, at least until this debt is repaid.

The co-op promised the $8.75 average increase, which will be labeled on customers’ bills as a “Temporary Storm Surcharge,” will remain in place for two years beginning Oct. 1. Each customer’s actual bill will increase $.007 per kilowatt hour used per month.

In the letter, the company said it “incurred unexpected and significant costs during the winter storm to procure power, repair equipment and infrastructure, and restore power to the Texas Hill Country — costs which totaled approximately $160 million.” The letter says the co-op’s “favorable credit rating” allowed it to borrow money “at low rates,” but that now, to maintain that credit rating, “the rating agency is requiring PEC to pay off the winter storm debt in three years.” 

“To maintain its credit rating, PEC is deferring or eliminating certain capital gains expenditures and expenses, and will continue to do so as long as the electrical system remains reliable and safe,” the PEC said in its unsigned letter. “Unfortunately, cost-saving efforts alone cannot pay off the storm debt within three years.”

The monthly increase from $.027120 per kilowatt hour to $.028405 per kilowatt hour will also become effective Oct. 1

“Construction costs have greatly increased over the last two years, and growth within our service area is driving up demand,” PEC said in explaining the rate hike. “Consequently, the cost of maintaining and operating our more than 23,500 miles of distribution line, which supplies power to over 1 million Texans, has increased.”

City becoming too sophisticated for some council members

Chalk it up to this city simply growing so much too rapidly. To be generous, to be kind, that’s the reason I am going to proffer for the fact that too many members of the city council simply don’t have the expertise, the experience, to competently set policy for Kyle and its citizens. Governing a city the size of which Kyle has become requires far more competency than, say, presiding over a neighborhood PTA meeting, but, unfortunately, by watching our council in action recently I have come to the conclusion that’s the intellectual capacity of many current council members. I hold City Manager Scott Sellers in high esteem. I know, if I was in his place, I would have become so exasperated by some of the actions and some of the questions asked by certain council members, I would have grabbed them by the neck and screamed “Either learn the job or quit right now so we can replace you with someone who does know how to do it.”

And maybe it’s not entirely their fault. It’s perfectly OK if you don’t know how to swim to stand in the deep end of the pool when it’s empty and some of these council members first ventured into the pool when it was empty. But now it’s full, and not knowing how to swim becomes extremely problematic, especially when there are no lifeguards on duty.

This is the second time I’ve realized many members of the council representing the citizens of Kyle were not up to that task. The first time was in August 2018 when the council was debating potential changes to the city’s charter and, during these debates, they simply would not or could not stay on the subject of changes to the charter. What made it so exasperating was that they didn’t even realize their discussions were off the subject. Instead of acting like city council members they came across like kindergarten kids on the playground. I became so exasperated by the experience I simply threw up my hands and this journal went into extended hibernation for almost two years, When I emerged from my self-imposed exile I was hoping things may have gotten better and for a while there I really thought they had. But now I realize the conditions are worse than they were back in the summer of 2018, not because the current council members are any less qualified than those of that time, but because the stakes are so much higher now due to the city’s incredible growth. Simply put, too many members of the Kyle City Council are minor leaguers forced to play and compete in the majors.

In a rare example of graciousness I am not going to single any of the minor leaguers out by name. But for those readers who would like to take the time to identify them, here’s how to do it: Review the videos of the recent council meetings during which the just-passed budget is being addressed. Specifically pay attention when the subject of lobbyists is being discussed. You can identify the sub-pars by those asking the city manager such questions as “What is our lobbyist going to do?” or “Can you outline for us the responsibilities of our state lobbyist?”. Asking those questions should immediately disqualify a person from serving on the city council because not only the ability to set policy for a city like Kyle but also the concept of policy-setting is simply beyond their grasp. As representatives of the people, they get failing grades.

Citizens up to the task of serving on a council representing residents of a city such as Kyle would, instead, be asking this question when it comes to the subject of a state lobbyist: “What, specifically, is the city’s legislative agenda for the 2023 session and, if we haven’t formulated it, why don’t we create a task force immediately to begin putting that agenda together for consideration by the entire council?” Then, when that agenda is completed and receives council approval, the next question becomes “What parts of this agenda do we want our lobbyist to concentrate on?”

The short answer to the question of “What is our lobbyist going to do?” is simply “Whatever you instruct that lobbyist to do.” Any council member qualified to serve on the Kyle City Council should know that the lobbyist works for that council, takes his/her instructions from the council and serves at the whim of the council. The state lobbyist is the council’s voice in the state capitol, the person who carries the city’s water to Austin. The lobbyist is the council’s marionette, and the council controls its strings and provides it with a voice.

And any council member who doesn’t know this or who doesn’t want to step up and control those strings, provide that voice, should resign immediately and turn their seat over to someone who does.

Three council members join governor's war against Texas cities

 Gov. Gregg Abbott and his Republican cohorts in the legislature don’t like cities. Why? Because that’s where Democrats live and in order to remain in power, Abbott and his merry band of reactionaries need to silence the voice and reduce the influence of those living in Texas’ metropolitan areas. Now it appears that three members of our own city council — Dex Ellison, Yvonne Flores-Cale and Michael Tobias — are joining Abbott’s crusade to neuter cities.

Abbott has championed and the legislature has approved capping property tax rates cities can collect, but not doing the same thing for any other taxing entity that collects property tax. They have also prohibited cities from enacting ordinances to protect their environment as well as voting restrictions that only effect metropolitan areas. He tried hard, but so far has failed, to prohibit cities from passing laws that prohibit texting while driving, or to enact ordinances protecting LGBTQ residents. Abbott even wants to prohibit cities from enacting tree ordinances simply because the city of Austin once prohibited him from chopping down a heritage tree on property he purchased unless he replaced it with three other trees. Yes, this proposal Abbott wanted the legislature to pass was a personal vendetta.

Here’s what the Houston Chronicle, in an article referring to the governor as “Comrade Abbott,” recently wrote:

“Gone are the days when the Republican Party of Texas could be counted on to defend local control. No longer do Texas conservatives believe that government closest to the people is the best kind of government. Instead we’ve witnessed the emergence of a political movement dedicated to stealing power away from local voters and moving it to Austin, where big money donors have created a one-stop shop to get what they want out of government.”

And there was this from the Texas Municipal League:

“From proposed revenue caps, to spending caps, to tree ordinances, to texting while driving, and more, no one has ever proposed such sweeping restrictions on local voters having a voice in shaping the character of their communities. Seventy-four percent of Texans live in our 1,215 towns and cities and the decisions they have made at the local level have put Texas cities at the top of the nation in success. Stifling their voices through an all-powerful, overreaching state government is a recipe for disaster.”

Abbott admits to leading this war against cities. “For us to be able to continue our legacy of economic freedom, it was necessary that we begin to speak up and to propose laws to limit the ability of cities to California-ize the great state of Texas,” said Abbott at an event with the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute back in 2017.

He went so far as to tell this group that Texas  should issue a “ban across the board” on municipal regulations.

“One strategy would be for the state of Texas to take a ‘rifle shot after rifle shot after rifle shot’ approach to try to override all these local regulations,” Abbott explained to the conservative audience. “I think it would be far simpler, and frankly easier for those of you who have to run your lives and your businesses on a daily basis, if the state of Texas adopted an overriding policy to create certain standards that must be met.” 

Bennett Sandlin, executive director of the Texas Municipal League, said one way Abbott and his cohorts could create these standards is by having the state strip all 352 home-rule cities like Kyle, which are free to enact regulations as long as they don’t expressly conflict with state law, of their home-rule powers. They would then be treated as general-rule cities, which are usually small and can regulate only areas the state specifically gives them permission to oversee. The Texas constitution specifies that home-rule cities can't pass ordinances that contradict state law, which legal experts say means cities wouldn't have much recourse if Texas decided to preempt their powers.

Sandlin has naturally been an outspoken opponent of Abbott’s attacks on municipalities. He says this hostility toward cities and local control didn’t exist at the Texas Capitol before Abbott became governor.

“It’s only been since 2015 that we’ve seen this new tactic, where local control is no longer a good thing, it’s actually an evil thing," says Sandlin. "The new good thing is now liberty from local regulations."

Abbott & Friends’ big push against municipal governments of late is to prohibit them from lobbying at the state level. And Ellison, Flores-Cale and Tobias are fine with that. They, too, seem to think cities should not have a voice when decisions are being made, laws are being passed, under the capitol dome that directly affect Kyle and other cities. The reason I say that is because those three voted to remove funding for a state lobbyist that was in the city’s budget that was finally passed last night, a move that thankfully failed on a 4-3 roll-call vote.

Why did they vote against this funding? As Flores-Cale explained, it is because the current special session of the legislature is once again considering bills, as part of Abbott’s war on cities, that, if passed, would prohibit cities from such lobbying efforts. But it makes absolutely no sense to stop your ability to persuade unless you absolutely have to. That’s tantamount to the soldier saying “There’s a chance I might be killed in this battle, so I’m going to commit suicide right now.”

In fact, what these council members and the rest of the council should be doing is investigating forming or joining a coalition of other municipalities to mount legal challenges to this law and other statutes limiting municipal government effectiveness and control. 

Don’t meekly surrender, as Ellison, Flores-Cale and Tobias seem to want to do. Fight back! Fight to protect local control of city governments. Don’t surrender that authority to the state.

Revisiting a plan to eliminate city property taxes for elderly residents

 During last night’s city council meeting to finally pass the budget and the tax rate for the upcoming fiscal year, there was talk from council members on ways to reduce the property tax. Back in June 2016, I proposed a plan via this journal to increase the homestead exemption and thus reduce the property tax on homesteads owned by those over the age of 65. Here is a slightly edited version of that original article:

(Truth in advertising. Truth No. 1: I am over the age of 65. Truth No. 2: I do not have a homestead in Kyle.)

I want to make a recommendation for this year’s budget which is to initiate a five-year phase out of property taxes on the homesteads owned by Kyle’s elderly residents. This can not only be accomplished but in a way that will place absolutely no additional tax burdens on others. In fact, it won’t even reduce the amount of property tax the city currently receives. That’s right: Property taxes for those over the age of 65 — many, if not most, of whom are on fixed incomes — can be phased out without reducing the current amount of property taxes the city receives.

The plan is relatively simple. In Year One, the city’s portion of the property tax bill on homesteads owned by elderly residents would be reduced 20 percent; in year two, it would go down 40 percent; 60 percent in year three; 80 percent in year four and finally 100 percent in year five and thereafter.

Here’s why the plan works. According to figures graciously provided me by the city’s expert Finance Director Perwez Moheet (to whom I owe a huge debt of gratitude for getting these numbers for me), if elderly property tax owners were granted a 100 percent exemption this fiscal year, it would cost the city $1,142,000, a mere 1.04 percent of the total budgeted tax revenue. But in Year One, we’re only talking about a 20 percent reduction, which comes to $228,400.

Last month, Moheet told me he expected, based on figures released by the Hayes Central Appraisal District, Kyle’s homeowner valuations would increase 3.13 percent over last year’s. But let’s be really pessimistic here. Let’s say those valuations increase only 2 percent. Moheet told me a 2 percent increase would mean an additional $250,000 in property tax income. That’s still more than the $228,400 lost by beginning the phase out of property taxes for Kyle’s elderly homeowners.

That’s why, not only morally, but monetarily, such a phase out is sensible. It’s doable. And it’s the right thing to do for our elderly citizens.

Now I only hope someone on the City Council has the courage to propose this and make it a part of next year’s budget.

Like I said, that was written and posted on this blog in June 2016 when property values were increasing by only 3.13 percent. This year they increased more than four times that amount, which means the overall impact on the budget would be even less. I am convinced it was a great idea in 2016. I am now convinced it’s even a better idea today.

How the city council voted Wednesday night

Item 1: Approval of a resolution authorizing the grant award of $45,000, for the term Sept. 1-Aug. 31, 2022, from the Office of the Governor, Victim Coordinator and Liaison Grant Program, to fund a full-time victim services advocate at Kyle Police Department and to include city matched funds of $18,616.88.
Approved 7-0

Item 4: (Second Reading)  Approve an ordinance adopting a budget totaling $172.6 million for all City Funds for the ensuing fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 and ending Sept. 30, 2022; appropriating revenue and expenditure amounts thereof for all city funds, authorizing a 6 percent increase in water service rates, no changes in wastewater service rates, no changes in storm drainage fees, a 2.51 percent increase in solid waste service charges, all other fees and charges for city services as provided for in the fee schedule, capital improvement program expenditures, addition of 23.0 new full-time positions for a total of 304 full-time equivalent positions, carryover of encumbrances, all associated schedules and documents, and repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith; and providing for an effective date.
Approved 7-0

Item 5: (Second Reading)  Approve an ordinance fixing the ad valorem tax (property tax) rate for tax year 2021 (fiscal year 2021-22) at $.5082 per $100 assessed valuation and providing for the levying of ad valorem taxes for use and support of the municipal government of the city for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1  ending Sept. 30, 2022; providing for apportioning each levy for specific purposes; and providing when ad valorem taxes shall become due and when same shall become delinquent if not paid.
Approved 7-0 

Speak now or forever hold your peace

Wednesday marks the last opportunity for residents to tell their council representatives how they feel about the city’s budget for the next fiscal year and all the tax adjustments the council has pushed to help pay for the planned expenses in that budget before the council votes to enact it.

Although it’s not uncommon to see residents gripe about city services and taxes on various social media platforms, not one single person stepped forward, either in person or virtually, to comment during last Tuesday’s council meeting on the proposed $172.6 million budget, the largest in the city’s history by far, that includes, according to the city’s own verbiage, “authorizing a 6 percent increase in water service rates, no changes in wastewater service rates, no changes in storm drainage fees, a 2.51 percent increase in solid waste service charges … capital improvement program expenditures, (and the) addition of 23 new full-time positions.”

The second of the two required budget public hearings takes place at City Hall shortly after 7 p.m., Wednesday for anyone who wants one last chance to comment on how the city plans to spend taxpayer funds before the budget ordinance is finally passed later in the meeting. Between now and then you can take a gander at all the documents you will need to learn all about the budget by clicking here and going to the bottom of this page to access any and all of those attachments listed. Hint: the most important part of the budget is the General Fund, the budget for which this upcoming fiscal year is $34.3 million, which accounts for all the day-to-day municipal operations and maintenance.

Because of an increase in property valuations, the city plans to lower the property tax rate 2.3 percent, from the current $.5201 per $100 assessed valuation to $.5082. A separate public hearing is scheduled on the subject of this proposed tax rate and will immediately follow the public hearing on the proposed budget.

The budget originally forecast collecting $12.6 million in sales taxes during the upcoming fiscal year, which is considerably higher — $2.1 million higher, to be precise — than the city is on a pace to collect this year. Not only that, during last week’s meeting, the council voted to raise that anticipated sales tax total in the upcoming budget by $378,038 to finance the addition of four police officers and two leased police pursuit vehicles.

Random observations after Tuesday night’s City Council meeting

First random observation: The council hosted a presentation on the progress of relocating the railroad siding that way-too-often forces trains to come to a dead stop that blocks all traffic at the Center Street crossing. Three years ago, funds were identified to pay Union Pacific what it would cost to relocate that siding to a place beginning just north of the Burleson Road crossing to just north of where Kohlers Crossing crosses the track. Not only that, additional funds are being sought to build a Kohlers Crossing overpass so that the trains will not block that roadway once the siding relocation is complete. During the presentation and ensuing council question-and-answer session we learned (1) construction on the project is set to begin in 2023; (2) that many residents in the Creekside Village subdivision between Burleson and Plum Creek whose homes abut the tracks are upset because the siding relocation will necessitate the temporary removal of backyard fences (a Union Pacific spokesperson promised the railroad would replace those fences with better ones once construction is complete); and (3) that the siding’s relocation is dependent on money being available to construct the Kohlers Crossing overpass.

But the one question I wanted answered — and, I firmly believe, the question on the minds of most residents, especially those who drive through downtown Kyle — was “when will trains no longer block Center Street?” Personally, I don’t expect it to happen in my lifetime, but, still, it would be nice to have a target date on when traffic flow might normalize in that heavily trafficked section of the city. And no one on the council asked this question. I wonder if any of them even thought to ask this most important question on this subject.

Second random observation: “I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like.” That statement has been the caption of a famous New Yorker cartoon. It has been the title of a book written by someone I know little about, Marjorie Bull. It has been repeated ad nauseam by visitors to art galleries and exhibitions. And it was what was running through my mind the entire time the council was talking about the idea of forming an Arts Commission.

Each and every council member has a completely different idea about what a municipal Arts Commission is all about. And the answer is really simple. All it takes is a couple of different steps. The first is to identify a constant municipal funding source to underwrite the arts — in whatever shape it might take — in the city. One suggestion: Permanently dedicate .2 percent of the city’s annual CIP budget each fiscal year to arts funding (since art, especially the installation of art in public places, is intrinsically tied to infrastructure projects). Another suggestion: Pass an ordinance that sets aside 1 to 2 percent of the city’s Hotel Occupancy Taxes collected each year for arts expenditures.

Once this preliminary funding is identified, then and only then should the city create an Arts Commission whose tasks will be to (1) identify and solicit public and private grants/contributions to subsidize and enhance the city’s contribution to arts funding (i.e., grants from the National Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the Humanities); (2) determine if a particular project is eligible for a state tax credit for historic renovation; (3) create a 501(c)(3) to administer the public art program, so that donated monies could be used tax-free and would represent taxable deductions for donors; (4) hold public meetings during which arts patrons seeking money from the city for art projects for Kyle can argue for their projects to receive public funding; (5) debate and vote on which of these projects should receive city funds; and ultimately (6) make formal recommendations to the council on at least a quarterly basis on how the money in the “arts fund” should be spent. 

Tuesday night’s discussion was focused almost exclusively on buying statues or sculptures to place at various sites around the city. Sure. Fine, Whatever. But you don’t need an Arts Commission for that. All you need is an arts consultant. The reason you need an Arts Commission is for that time when a group of Lehman High School graduates who went away to, say, ballet school, and then returned to Kyle, got together and came up with the idea of trying to establish a ballet company in Kyle. Is that something the city should invest in? Kyle having its own ballet company could conceivably attract visitors to the city if done correctly and it would be up to the Arts Commission to determine if it would be done correctly. Personally, I would love to see the day when a group of citizens got together to form a community theater here in Kyle. Such an endeavor should not be financed solely through the funds recommended by the Arts Commission, but the commission could recommend a proper amount for the city to invest to get the project up and running as well as possible additional funding annually. 

The Arts Commission should also be tasked to working in tandem with Economic Development to develop incentives for developers to commission works of art for their projects. The commission can show how such public/private partnerships can benefit developers by (1) improving employee and tenant working environments; (2) creating a unique look or landmark feature for the project; (3) demonstrating a larger civic commitment; and (4) translating into higher rents and a more desirable office location. And then the commission could also offer recommendations for specific installations.

Another discussion involved whether members of the Arts Commission should be restricted to residents of the city and its ETJ. I would vehemently argue against this. I should think selection process for commission members should give extra weight to local residents, but, when it comes to something like “expertise in the arts,” why limit yourself? Why restrict the ability to have expertise solely on geographical grounds? If there’s another Charles Umlauf anywhere in Central Texas and that person would like to serve on Kyle’s Art Commission, I would definitely welcome that expertise, regardless of where that person called home.

Third random observation: I’m not totally convinced everyone on the City Council completely understands the municipal budgeting process. This thought struck me during the council’s debate on finding the money in the budget for two additional police officers. 

Let me backtrack here for a second. During the last budget workshop, on July 31, Chief of Police Jeff Barnett told the council the city could hire two more police officers and they could be hired without taking money from any other expenditure proposed by the city manager. For instance, he said, during the height of the 2020 COVID pandemic, the state placed a moratorium on requiring motorists to have their vehicles pass an annual inspection. As a result, the city could no longer ticket motorists for expired inspection stickers. That moratorium has expired, so the city can commence writing those tickets again, potentially increasing the amount of fines from those tickets that flow into the city’s coffers over what was collected this fiscal year. Additionally, Barnett told the council that more motorists are on the roads again and more motorists translates into more traffic violations which, again, translates into potentially more fines. All in all, Barnett said, the amount of money the city will see in increased revenue from fines during the upcoming fiscal year as compared to the amount collected this year will more than pay for the new officers. Council member Dex Ellisson didn’t like this one bit, saying “This is anticipated revenue, not actual revenue.” What??? The entire city budget – the entire budget of any municipality in Texas that must adopt balanced budgets — is based on anticipated revenue. The budget is 100 percent dependent on expert prognostications of “How much money do we anticipate we will collect this fiscal year in ad valorem taxes, how much do we expect to collect in sales taxes, how much in fines, fees, franchises, etc.” It’s never about how much money does the city currently have in the bank, but how much do we anticipate coming in during the 365 days commencing Oct. 1. A significant inflationary spiral hitting the country could slash local sales tax revenues by as much as a double-digit percentage. Admittedly, I have not heard of any economists predicting a period of widespread inflation in the coming years such as the one that hit us early this century, but, then two years ago I had not heard any medical experts predicting a worldwide pandemic either.

A second thing that seems to be outside the grasp of city council members is when they are talking about budget expenditures, that discussion is not — NOT — about actually spending money. It’s only about setting aside money to be spent sometime in the future. Council members were debating as those budgeting $200,000 for additional police officers actually meant the city was going to spend $200,000 for additional police officers during the upcoming fiscal year. The only way that could conceivably happen is if the additional police officers managed to have somehow graduated from the police academy, be hired by the city, and be on the job by Oct. 1 and, folks, that isn’t possible. So while philosophical discussions about quotas and what’s wrong with quotas might be enlightening and worthwhile (and those arguments were certainly featured and constantly reiterated during Tuesday night’s debate), they have absolutely no bearing or relevance in a budget discussion. Whether the money comes from property taxes, fines, franchise fees, overdue library books, sales taxes — whatever — it all goes into big a stewpot called the General Fund and what the council decided Tuesday night is beginning this fiscal year and continuing until some future council says otherwise, the city is going to set aside the money required each year to pay for four more patrolmen for the Kyle Police Department along with the patrol car and whatever other equipment they may need. And, as long as the patrolmen are currently making what is specified in the current civil service contract, the city anticipates that amount is going to be approximately $200,000 a year. Now, it’s also possible that in upcoming years, when much of their equipment will already be paid for, the cost of those four officers will be somewhat less. That doesn’t mean an adjustment in the $200,000 is required or even necessary; it could simply mean more money will be available in the city’s cash reserves. But that’s probably way more information than anyone needs to know, except, of course, for our representatives on the council. I really wish they knew this.

COVID concerns force council to cancel balloon festival

The City Council emerged from an executive session that came at the end of a nearly five-hour meeting Tuesday night and voted 6-1 to cancel the Labor Day weekend Pie in the Sky festival over concerns surrounding the rising number of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations in the area.

Council member Ashlee Bradshaw cast the lone dissenting vote.

“Pie in the Sky contracts” were listed as one subject of the executive session under the heading “Pending or contemplated litigation or to seek the advice of the City Attorney.” Thus it must be assumed that not only did the council learn that many vendors and balloon participants were pulling out the festival, but also that the city attorney probably advised the council of potential legal liability in the very real possibility that the festival turned into a COVID super-spreader event.

“With the current situation that is going on in our city and for the safety and well-being of our residents and the city staff and everyone involved, with a heavy heart I want to make the motion and the recommendation that we cancel this year’s Pie in the Sky festival for 2021,” council member Michael Tobias said.

“This is one of the hardest votes I have to take,” said council member Robert Rizo, who seconded Tobias’ motion, “because I really wanted to see us get past the pandemic and see us getting our lives back. For us to be in the situation we are right now is very depressing and very sad.”

A prepared statement from the city, issued today, added: “COVID-19 has impacted nearly every piece of event planning from staffing and volunteers to availability of vendors and supplies. City leadership has also kept a close eye on local COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations and ultimately wanted to avoid contributing to an already strained healthcare system. With the continued increase in active cases in the area, specifically the Delta Variant, the city anticipates these challenges will only continue and become increasingly more difficult. Refunds will be issued to all vendors and ticket purchasers.”

How the city council voted Tuesday

 Consent Agenda

Item 11: Approve the conveyance of a municipal utility easement to the city from Plum Creek Development Partners, Ltd. for the Heroes Memorial Park.
Item 12: Approve the conveyance of a drainage easement to the city from Mountain Plum, LTD. for the Heroes Memorial Park.
Item 13: Approve the conveyance of a temporary construction easement to the city from Plum Creek Development Partners, LTD. for the Heroes Memorial Park.
Item 14: Approval of a temporary construction license agreement to the city and Stoddard Construction Company, Inc. from PC Operating Partners, LTD. for the La Verde Park project.
Item 15: Approve conveyance of a permanent 15-foot electrical easement and approve an underground agreement to Pedernales Electrical Cooperative (PEC) to provide electrical power to the wastewater treatment plant headworks.
Item 16: Approve amendment No. 1 to task order No. 6 to LJA Engineering, Inc., Austin, in the amount of $130,134.09 increasing the total contract amount not to exceed $206,473.09 for the Anthem to Kohlers Crossing waterline connection project.
Item 17: Approval of change order No. 2 to N.G. Painting, LP, Kerrville, in an additional amount of $3,200 increasing the total contract amount not to exceed $395,200 for the purpose of providing additional work for well No. 4 elevated storage tank located on Kohlers Crossing. (Editor’s note: The change involves removing the existing logo and replacing it with updated "La Verde" logo, along with installing the same additional logo on opposite side of the tank..)
Item 18: Approval of change order No. 3, to Archer Western Construction, LLC, Irving, in an additional amount not to exceed $3,676,597 increasing the total contract amount not to exceed $34,014,667 for the purpose of constructing a sludge dewatering facility at the wastewater treatment plant site. (Editor’s note: According to the city, the construction of a dewatering facility will provide a permanent solution to process solids from the wastewater treatment plant process and eliminate the need for leased dewatering equipment. All solids will be taken off site for final disposal.  Major equipment components will include a three-meter belt press, sludge belt conveyor, pre-engineered metal building, pumps, motors, electrical systems, and HVAC system. This work will add an additional 151 days to the contract and not impact the March 2022 completion date of the wastewater treatment plant expansion.)
Item 19: Approve a resolution to record the annual review of the city's investment policy as required by the Public Funds Investment Act and to document findings that no changes to the policy or to the investment strategies are necessary in the 2021 review.
Item 20: Approve a professional services agreement with P3WORKS, LLC, Austin, to provide public improvement district formation and administration services to the city in association with the Kyle 57 PID.  All costs incurred for services under this agreement will be paid through future PID assessments collected.
Item 21: Sludge handling services agreement with Sheridan Environmental dba Sheridan Clearwater, LLC.
Item 22: Approve change order No. 2 in the sum of $329,334.46 to Smith Contracting Co. Inc., Austin, to address the increased price of 36-inch PVC and 12-inch PVC pipe for the Bunton Creek Interceptor project.
Item 23: Approve and ratify a purchase order to Dianna L. Tinkler, Austin, in the amount of $16,012.90 for providing acquisition services for the Bunton Creek Interceptor project.
Item 24: A resolution of the city council accepting the 6 Creeks Boulevard, phase 1, section 3 (right of way only) improvements: finding and determining that the meeting at which this resolution is passed was noticed and is open to the public as required by law.
Approved 7-0

Budget ordinances

Item 28: (First Reading)  Approve an ordinance adopting a budget totaling $172.6 million for all city funds for the ensuing fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, and ending Sept. 30, 2022; appropriating revenue and expenditure amounts thereof for all city funds, authorizing a 6 percent increase in water service rates, no changes in wastewater service rates, no changes in storm drainage fees, a 2.51 percent increase in solid waste service charges, all other fees and charges for city services as provided for in the fee schedule, capital improvement program expenditures, addition of 21 new full-time positions for a total of 302 full-time equivalent positions, carryover of encumbrances, all associated schedules and documents, and repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith; and providing for an effective date.
Motion to defund state and federal lobbyists failed 4-3 (Ellison, Flores-Cale, Tobias in the minority); motion to eliminate proposed deputy city manager, change the chief of staff’s position to an assistant city manager and hiring a third assistant city manager approved 7-0; motion to hire two additional police officers funded by a $200,000 adjustment in projected sales tax revenues approved 7-0; move to approve the budget as amended approved 6-1 (Ellison dissenting).

Item 29: (First Reading)  Approve an ordinance fixing the ad valorem tax (property tax) rate for Fiscal Year 2021-22 at $0.5082 per $100 assessed valuation and providing for the levying of ad valorem taxes for use and support of the municipal government of the city for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 and ending Sept. 30, 2022; providing for apportioning each levy for specific purposes; and providing when ad valorem taxes shall become due and when same shall become delinquent if not paid.
Approved 7-0

Other proposed changes to city ordinances

Item 25: (First Reading) An ordinance continuing with curfew for minors under 17 years of age per sections 23-23 through 23-30; entitled “Triennial Review;” “Providing for Enforcement;” “Establishing Criminal Penalties;” and “Setting an Effective Date.”
Approved 7-0 (Second reading waived)

Item 27: (First Reading) An ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances sec 2-40. – definitions, Sec.  -43. - “Term of Appointment,” and Sec. 2-45 - “Qualifications;” “Providing Exceptions;” “Providing an Effective Date;” and “Making Such Other Findings and Provisions Related Hereto.” (Editor’s note: This ordinance applies to the terms and the qualifications of board and commission members, basically allowing board members to serve a third two-year term.)
Approved 6-1 (Flores-Cale dissenting)

Item 30: (First Reading) An ordinance to update the city’s building and trades code standards from the 2015 edition to the 2021 edition of the ICC Code, and to update the electric standard from the 2014 edition to the 2020 edition of the National Electric Code, and providing for local amendments to the 2021 International Fire Code.
Approved 7-0 (second reading waived)

Other items for individual consideration

Item 26: Arts Commission update.
No acton taken

Item 31: Developing a “Smart Cities” initiative and creating a city council task force.
Motion to have Mayor Mitchell, Mayor Pro Tem Koch and council member Robert Rizo to meet with Honeywell Building Technologies to discuss that company’s approach to a “Smart Cities” initiative approved 6-1 (Ellison dissenting)

Item 32: Discussion and possible action on implementing a process to create a Human Services Board/Commission to review, advise, and create an equitable and fair process for allocating grant funding to non-profits organizations serving in the Kyle area.
Postponed to next council meeting.

Item 34: Take action on items discussed in executive session.
Motion to cancel this year’s Pie in the Sky Festival approved 6-1 (Bradshaw dissenting).

Tobias unopposed, three challenge mayor pro tem for council seat

District 6 council member Michael Tobias will not face any opposition in his bid for a second three-year term on the city council, but Mayor Pro Tem Rick Koch has drawn three challengers in his race for a second term to represent District 5.

District 6 predominantly includes the Spring Branch subdivision on the west side of I-35; and the Amberwood, Steeplechase, Kensington Trails, Southlake Ranch, Lakeside Crossing, Indian Paintbrush and the Meadows of Kyle residential areas on the east side. District 5, however, is a citywide at-large district and thus will require more financial resources to wage a successful campaign

Lined up to challenge Koch are medically retired Iraq war veteran Donny Willis, insurance service consultant Daniela Parsley and Leah Kaufman, who listed her occupation on her ballot application as “director of nonprofit” and has only lived in the state for 19 months.

Of the four candidates in the District 5 race, Willis has been the most active, creating a campaign Facebook page on which he wrote: “Kyle is having unprecedented growth and the management of that growth has myself and many citizens worried.” He specifically mentioned city streets that he said are “falling apart or being ignored.” He also made a reference to “the mistrust of the current administration,” but did not specify whether he was referring to elected officials or the city’s staff, or even the nature of that mistrust. He did, however, vow to attempt to meet as many local residents “as I possibly can and addressing these many issues head on.”

Although Koch has a history of service to the city, having served as the chair of the city’s Planning & Zoning Commission, among other volunteer positions, neither Willis, Parsley nor Kaufman are members of any existing city boards or commissions.

Council to consider 2.3 percent decrease in property tax rate

The City Council is scheduled to hold public hearings Tuesday to gather citizen input on the city manager’s proposed $172.6 million budget for the upcoming fiscal year along with a recommended 2.3 percent decrease in the city’s property tax rate.

The council is also scheduled to vote on the first readings of the budget and proposed tax rate ordinances later in Tuesday’s meeting.

The ordinances, if finally passed Aug. 25, would lower the ad valorem tax from $.5201 per $100 assessed valuation to $.5082. This is slightly above the $.5065 figure Finance Director Perwez A. Moheet predicted during the July 31 unveiling of the city manager’s budget proposal. Of course, the council could lower the rate even further, but any additional reductions would have to be accompanied by a corresponding reduction in expenditures and since so much of this budget is devoted to infrastructure improvements near and dear to the hearts of council members and their constituents any reductions could be (1) difficult to find and (2) even more difficult to gain majority approval from council members.

The reduced property tax rate also will not translate into lower property tax bills because the Hays Central Appraisal District’s assessed valuations for properties in Kyle were 14.1 percent higher this year than last.

The Hays CISD, which accounts for the biggest chunk of a property owner’s tax bill, has yet to decide on how it plans to adjust its current tax rate of $1.4037 per $100 valuation for the next fiscal year.

Citizens can read the proposed budget, amendments already approved by council to that budget and other supporting budget documents here. The public hearings on the budget are items 5 and 6 on Tuesday’s agenda, which means they should take place shortly after the council convenes at 7 p.m.

Hays school superintendent says students “should” wear masks

 Hays school superintendent Dr. Eric Wright, citing a massive increase in COVID cases among school-aged children in the district, hinted Saturday he might insist students wear masks to attend the district’s schools even if the Texas Supreme Court affirms Gov. Greg Abbott’s ban on masks mandates.

Dr. Eric Wright

“COVID cases in school-aged children in the county are up 130 percent in the last two weeks,” Wright said in an email sent to parents of Hays CISD students. “The Delta variant is filling up hospitals. By most measures, if not all, this surge is worse than what we faced at the beginning of last school year. What we should do is wear masks. Wearing a mask violates no law or order.”

Hays County Judge Ruben Bacerra issued an executive order Friday requiring mask-wearing in schools. 

 “Currently, 70 percent of the 12-15 age group are unvaccinated, and children under 12 are not eligible for a vaccine at all,” Bacera said in defense of his order. “Masks are their only line of defense. We are experiencing a health crisis emergency with rising hospitalizations, and limited bed space. I am concerned about the health and safety of our children and our hardworking faculty and staff members in our ISDs and hospitals. This order is intended to slow down community spread of the COVID-19 virus, and free up hospital space. Personal responsibility, undefined, as a disaster response strategy for an infectious disease pandemic is not working.”

Bacerra’s executive order was similar to those issued by authorities in other governmental jurisdictions such as Dallas and Austin, but were in defiance of Gov. Abbott’s order that no government entity in Texas could issue a mask mandate. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed an order with the Texas Supreme Court seeking to overturn the local orders issued by Bacerra and others.

In his email, Wright said he expects the Texas high court, which, traditionally, acts more like a political body than a judicial one, will rule on the issue before classes begin Thursday in Hays schools. 

“Historically regarding COVID, the Texas Supreme Court has sided with the governor,” Wright said.

However, without much further explanation, Wright also said this:

“The court decisions will tell us what we must do. They will not tell us what we should do.”

Does that mean Wright might defy a ruling of the high court? He did not say specifically if he would do so, but he did say “What we should do is wear masks. Wearing a mask violates no law or order. It is the safe thing to do medically and legally.”

But he also said “We will do what we need to do to keep children and staff as safe as possible, but we must do it in a way that respects the ultimate decisions made under law. We cannot have chaos and blatant defiance. That serves no one — especially our children.

“Sadly, the issue of masks is fully entrenched in adult politics,” the superintendent added. “I, along with your locally elected school board, will continue to keep the well-being of your children and our students as the focus.”

Wright also hinted he may reveal additional strategies early this week: “I am working through the weekend with our leadership team and we’ll convene on Monday to make decisions.”

“Our school district attorneys will be providing us with legal counsel that will guide us in our ‘must do’ decisions,” Wright said. “We are educators not lawyers. Know, however, that being in the education business, we — as a collective group of staff, parents, intelligent students and teachers, and locally connected leaders — are capable of solving problems and finding creative solutions that fit within the rules. That’s what we do every day. There’s a way to solve this. Granted, our options are much more limited than last year and it will be a bigger challenge, but we will do this. We will keep our family safe.”

How the city council voted Tuesday

Consent Agenda

Item 6: Approve the conveyance of a wastewater line easement to the City of Kyle from Pantaleon Tenorio, Jr. for the Schlemmer and Porter Street Wastewater Line Improvement Project, Phase 1.
Item 7: Approval of underground agreement between Pedernales Electric Cooperative, Inc. and the City of Kyle for electrical service installation to Heroes Memorial Park located near intersection of Kohlers Crossing and FM 1626.
Item 8: Hays County election services contract and joint election agreement. (Editor’s note: This is the annual contract with Hays County to conduct the city's elections.)
Item 9: Approve an estimated amount of $20,110.50 for election services in accordance with the approved contract with the Hays County elections administrator relating to the Nov. 2 elections.
Item 10: Approve a resolution of the city council accepting the Brooks Ranch Phase 1 Subdivision improvements: finding and determining that the meeting at which this resolution is passed was noticed and is open to the public as required by law. 
Item 11: Approve library board recommendation to increase checkout limit to 10 DVDs and 25 total items per card. 
Item 12: Approve change order No. 1 to construction contract with T.F. Harper & Associates, LP,  Austin, in the amount of $24,992.46, increasing the total contract amount not to exceed $1,823,892.28  for the inclusion of 560 linear feet of three-inch diameter PVC conduit installation for future dry utilities related to park construction and improvements at Mary Kyle Hartson Park.
Item 13: Approve an agreement with Parallel - A Brand Agency, San Antonio, in an amount not to exceed $18,250 for event and marketing services (for the proposed “Kyle Fair and Fajita Cook-off”).
Item 14: Approve and ratify a purchase order to McGray & McGray, Land Surveyors, Inc., 3301 Hancock Drive, Suite 6, Austin, in the amount of $16,816 for providing right of way and topographic services for the downtown relocation of overhead lines around Old City Hall project. (Editor’s note: This survey is being performed to confirm the number of easements that will be necessary should the city proceed to the construction or relocation of the overhead lines.)
Approved 7-0

Appointments

Item 4: Confirm city manager's appointment of Jeneva Garza to the Civil Service Commission to fill a vacancy for a three-year term to expire July 31, 2024.
Approved 7-0

Zoning

Item 15: (First Reading) An ordinance amending Chapter 53 (Zoning) of the city for the purpose of assigning original zoning to 24.65 acres from Agriculture (AG) to Manufactured Home Park District (M-3) for property located 600 Bebee Road.
Approved 7-0 (second reading waived)

Item 16: (First Reading) An ordinance amending Chapter 53 (Zoning) of the city for the purpose  of modifying Sec. 53-5 Definitions (Building Acre, Multifamily Residential Restricted, Townhouse).
Approved 7-0 (second reading waived)

Item 17: (First Reading) An ordinance amending Chapter 53 (Zoning) of the city for the purpose of modifying Sec. 53-1047 – Authorized Conditional Uses; Exhibit A. – Plum Creek Planned Unit Development, Article II. – Planned Unit Development District, Part D. – Additional Use Regulations Sec. 1. - Additional use, height and area regulations and exceptions applicable to PUD districts unless otherwise approved by the city council.
Approved 7-0 (second reading waived)

Item 19: [Postponed 7/6/21] (First Reading) An ordinance amending Chapter 53 (Zoning) of the city for the purpose of assigning original zoning to 10.81 acres to Retail Service District (RS) and 34.83 acres to Multi-Family Residential-3 (R-3-3) for property located at 20139 IH-35 (the undeveloped south corner of Bebee Road and IH-35).
Motion to postpone consideration until first September council meeting approved 5-1 (Ellison dissenting, Mayor Mitchell recused)

Other items for individual consideration

Item 18: Consideration of an application to waive requirements for public road access to Lots 4A & 4B of the Oak Mesa Subdivision.
Approved 7-0

Item 20: Approve a resolution accepting a petition for the creation of the Kyle 57 Public Improvement District and calling for a public hearing.
Approved 7-0

Item 21: [Postponed 7/20/2021] (Second Reading) An ordinance amending Article II to include a Section 12-23 Roundabouts, requiring use of roundabouts in certain intersections, requiring consideration of roundabouts in certain intersections, requiring compliance with national standards in the construction of roundabouts, requiring notice of exclusions, providing severability, effective date, and open meetings clauses; and providing for related matters.
Approved 6-1 (Tobias dissenting)

Item 22: (First Reading) An ordinance ordering a general election to be held jointly with Hays County on Nov. 2 for the election of city council Place Five and Place Six to serve three-year terms. (Editor’s note: These are the council positions currently held by Mayor Pro Tem Rick Koch and Michael Tobias, respectively. Both Koch and Tobias are seeking re-election.)
Approved 7-0 (second reading waived)

Item 23: Discussion regarding Public Safety Center.
Motion by Mayor Travis Mitchell to direct staff to continue on with the plans that have been presented dedicating the square footage as outlined with, when the building opens, the police occupying slightly more than two-thirds of the center and administrative occupying slightly less than one- third approved 7-0. (Editor’s note: I inquired as to the propriety of taking action on an item listed in the agenda as a “discussion” item only and was told by city staff “As long as the subject matter is posted, the council can take action on the item. Additionally, the item was posted for both regular session and executive session. The agenda allows the council to take action on items discussed in executive session and the Public Safety Center was noted. As a practical matter, the council has an opportunity to reaffirm last night's vote when considering the Guaranteed Maximum Price Proposal that will come to council Sept. 7.”)

Item 26: Take action on items discussed in Executive Session.
Motion to authorize the city manager to approve an amendment to the Balcones Trail Workforce Housing payment and development agreement to provide the units to be restricted to tenants having an AMI of 60 percent or less approved 6-0 (Mayor Mitchell absent when vote taken)