I’m not making this up. This actually happened. If you don’t believe me, go on line and check out the recording of last night’s City Council meeting.
It’s 11:27 p.m. The council files back to the dais following a two-hour, 11-minute secretive executive session outside the view of the public, and Mayor Travis Mitchell says: "There was no action taken during executive session. There will be action taken now. Council member Scheel." Then Council member Tracy Scheel says "Mayor, I would like to offer a motion to authorize the city manager to enter an agreement with the Make-A-Wish Foundation for fund raising and a license agreement related to park land improvements."
OK, I’ve been putting up with this crap for four years now, but this time it just seemed to me the City Council had jumped the shark. First of all, there’s the mayor’s falsehood, his outright lie. Look, I have all the respect in the world for Mayor Mitchell. I spotted him as a positive political influence before he even formally announced his intention to seek a council seat. I thought way back then he was the most qualified person to succeed Todd Webster as mayor of this city and I remember meeting quietly with him at a local coffee shop where I told him I was convinced Webster would not seek re-election and urged Mitchell to forego a potential run for council seat and instead put all his energies and resources immediately into a mayoral run. I was afraid if he ran for council and then a year later tried for the city’s top elected post, his opponents in the race would try to brand him as an opportunist. As it turned out, I completely over-estimated the political sophistication of those seeking elected office in Kyle and my concerns were unwarranted. Not only that, Mitchell is only the latest mayor to tell these kind of lies. Mayor Webster did it before him and I imagine other mayors did the same thing before that.
Here’s the deal: Either Scheel completely blind sided every other member of the City Council by coming up on the spur of the moment this cockamamie notion for the city manager to enter into an agreement with the Make a Wish Foundation (Anyone out there crazy enough to wager that’s what really happened?); or, what is more likely, the council did, in fact, take action outside the public purview and decided the city manager should enter into such an agreement. In other words, the council took action in private, outside the view of the public, that should have been conducted in an open meeting. The council, once again, abused the concept of executive privilege that is a part of any executive session.
Like I said earlier, this is not the first time this has happened. In fact, it takes place with this council on a regular basis. I’ll get around to explaining my thoughts, my suspicions, on why this happens in a moment, but first I should explain why this episode became the proverbial straw that broke this camel’s back.
The Make-A-Wish Foundation is, to me, one of the all-time great feel-good stories and, boy, in this time in our nation’s history, we really need all the feel-good stories we can get.
Christopher James Greicius, a 7-year-old living in Arizona in the spring of 1980, had always wanted to be a police officer. But, by the spring of 1980, he was also being treated for leukemia. A U.S. Customs officer, Tommy Austin, befriended Chris and collaborated with officers of the Arizona Department of Public Safety on a plan to provide a special day for the youngster. Chris actually spent one day as a police officer. He received a custom-tailored police uniform. He rode in a police helicopter. He was formally, officially sworn in as the very first honorary Public Safety patrolman in the history of the state of Arizona. His wish to become a police officer was realized. Chris died soon after, but this episode became the foundation for the Make-A-Wish Foundation, which, to this day, still has its national headquarters in Phoenix, Ariz. The Make-A-Wish Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that arranges experiences described as "wishes" to children with life-threatening medical conditions.
But back to what happened last night. There’s the other part of this equation as it pertains to us here in Kyle which is, of course, a public park and the word "public" in this sentence can’t be stressed enough. Why is the council’s discussion and ultimately its decision to ask the city manager to enter into an agreement on this subject outside the public’s view? I posed that very question to City Attorney Paige Saenz.
"There are legal issues related to the contract," she told me.
OK. I’ll accept that. I don’t think the "legal issues" or the terms of any proposed contract should be discussed in public, but the overall process the council took to arrive at the decision that was made behind closed doors (the actions they took even though the mayor flatly stated "There was no action taken during executive session’) should be a part of the public discourse. And I know this has happened many times before, but this time the subject is the Make-A-Wish Foundation and a public park in Kyle and I expect citizens would want to know and have the right to know about discussions on those subjects, especially concerning their relationship to each other.
"I can’t speak to all of that," Saenz said. "Let me allow the city manager to respond to that."
So. I posed the same questions to City Manager Scott Sellers, another person for whom I have the utmost respect. In fact, I’ll go on the record as saying in my more than 50 years writing about and being involved in municipal governments around Texas, Scott Sellers is one of the best, if not the best, city administrator I have ever encountered. The City of Kyle has laid a solid foundation for its future and Scott Sellers has provided the leadership, the direction, to make sure this is the case.
But here’s what happened. When I told Sellers that, in my opinion, two subjects the public might be interested in were the Make-A-Wish Foundation and a public park, and then asked why those two subjects had to be discussed outside the public’s view, he said "There’s a contractual agreement with Make-A-Wish that we needed legal advice on."
Look, I’m not asking the city to reveal the actual terms of a potential contractual agreement. They shouldn’t, especially before all sides have agreed to it. But that’s just part of an overall story, the broader picture of which should be a part of the public discussion.
Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about that should be familiar to anyone following the national political scene. Both U.S. House and Senate have committees that have been investigating improprieties that occurred during the 2016 General Election. Some of the inquiries into those improprieties, i.e., some testimony from witnesses, have taken place in closed sessions. But the public has always been informed what the subject matter of those inquiries were going to be along with a general idea of what information the representatives hoped to glean from these closed sessions. Then, after the closed sessions are completed, the representatives have been very open about whether they felt all their concerns were addressed, all the questions were answered to their satisfaction and they provided this information without revealing the details of any classified information they were told behind the closed doors. Not only that, any discussions on whether to recall that witness or to summon additional witnesses based on what was learned in the closed session were always held in open session.
Here, in Kyle, that procedure is abused on a regular basis. As noted above, the council obviously discussed the pros and cons (if there were any) of asking the city manager to enter into negotiations with the Make-A-Wish Foundation and then decided (Was there a formal or even an informal vote on the question? If so, what was the breakdown of that vote? Those details should not be kept secret) that, yes, they wanted Sellers to enter into such negotiations. Such a discussion could be had without revealing any of the actual terms of a proposed contract.
Or could they? That brings me back to the subject I raised earlier, namely my suspicions on why this abuse of executive privilege happens so regularly. The only reason I can think of is this: The city staff just doesn’t trust the council’s ability to have a public discussion on matters such as this without disclosing privileged information. Going back to my example of the congressional committees, it’s important to note that, according to the Social Science Research Council, while 0.6 percent of the U.S. adult population are lawyers, 41 percent of the members of Congress are. But, as far as I can tell, the percentage of those on the Kyle City Council with a law degree hovers right at the zero mark. Kyle City Council members, staff believes, simply don’t possess the expertise to distinguish what can and what can’t be said in a public forum and, instead of providing some kind of training or guidance on these matters, figures it’s easier, it’s safer, to just lock them up outside the public’s view for these types of discussions — the public’s right-to-know be damned.
These thoughts, these suspicions, blossomed because Sellers had no qualms about discussing may of the details of ths subject with me.
"The city is going to partner with Make-A-Wish to fulfill a wish for a young boy here in Kyle," the city manager told me. "His wish is to build an outdoor hockey roller rink. His passion in life is hockey and he lives here in Kyle and there is not outdoor roller rink in the near vicinity. The closest ones are in San Antonio and north Austin. The city had already planned on building a covered pavilion in the budget. We talked about that very publicly. With some modifications we can turn that into a hockey rink but still have it be a public pavilion. But there’s a cost to that. There’s the walls that go around it. So because this is a wish that’s much larger than Make-A-Wish will typically fund, in order for them to feel comfortable moving forward with the wish, they needed a partner. So the agreement that the council just approved stipulates that the city will partner with them on the wish and will assist in the fund raising effort. If we’re not able to generate the necessary funding level that’s above our budgeted level for the project, then we’ll find the funds to stopgap that amount. It is our hope that the citizenry of Kyle and those that are associated with Kyle will recognize this as not only a public amenity but a wish for a young boy and they will feel a need to contribute to the facility."
Look-ee there. Sellers spelled out the entire project to me and nowhere did he reveal any privileged information. Nowhere did he disclose what advice he received from his legal counsel. Nowhere did he reveal the terms of any contract. All he revealed was information about a boy’s wish, the use of budgeted tax dollars (and, yes, the possibility of additional tax dollars) as well as plans for a public fund-raising campaign – all information that not only could have been revealed during public council discussion on this matter but I will argue should have been talked about in public if, for no other reason, than to increase the chances of a successful fund-raising effort. So why was it all done behind closed doors?
"Because we had very legal questions to ask the attorney about the contract because it involves the city budgeting, it involves a commitment to fund for a project that isn’t currently budgeted," the city manager replied.
However, I didn’t ask Sellers to reveal any legal questions that might have been posed and he didn’t volunteer any. And I’m not sure whether a discussion to fund "a project that isn’t currently budgeted" is one for an executive session and not a public discussion. It’s worth noting that after government officials raided the office of President Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen and seized volumes of written and electronic records, Cohen’s attorneys insisted that was all privileged attorney-client information. So the judge in the matter ordered the prosecution to turn over all the information it had seized to a special independent master the judge appointed who would determine what, if any, of the information was privileged. As it turned out, the special master has ruled more than 98 percent of the written material and over 99 percent of the electronic information is not, in fact, privileged information and can be returned to prosecutors. In other words, the legal scope of what can be kept from public consumption seems to be shrinking. So, in lieu of all that, why was this city council discussion held in private again?
"Because we’re not ready to make the public campaign yet," Sellers confessed.
My heavens. That raises an even more horrific option. That means the answers to all these questions may not be A, B or C. There’s a fourth answer, a D option in this multiple choice quiz and that D option is "We simply don’t want the public to know about this yet."
And that, to me, is the most disturbing option of them all.
The Kyle Report
Showing posts with label Tracy Scheel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tracy Scheel. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
Sunday, March 4, 2018
Caught between a rock and re-election
Tuesday’s city council agenda item to reconsider the vote on a zoning issue is just one more example of why it’s foolhardy to the point of being disastrous for cities the size of Kyle to have single member city council districts.
Talk to most good government experts and they’ll agree. Single member city council districts work efficiently only in cities with a population of at least 100,000 (cities as large as Seattle elect all council members at large) and the Sledge Street zoning folly is a perfect example of why this is so. The reason for this has to do with voter turnout. Too often in municipal elections the percentage of registered voters who come to the polls are in the single digits. Kyle is no exception. Historically, voter turnout hovers around 8 percent. That means only a small handful of people decide who runs the government and when cities with smaller populations carve those cities into individual voting districts, that pool of voters who decide the outcome is minuscule.
That’s the reason many of those citizens of Kyle who were the major influentials of Kyle’s elections in the past are solidly opposed to Kyle’s growth today. If growth results in the pool of voters growing larger — even if the small percentages remain unchanged — their influence diminishes proportionately (not to mention rapidly).
Which brings me back to "The Nightmare on Sledge Street." This property was owned for years by Tom and Mary Ayers who, like many of their neighboring property owners, secured development agreements with the city that kept them from having their property annexed into the city limits during annexation proceedings that occurred during the last couple of years. One of the caveats of the agreement, however, was the property could not be changed in any significant way. But the Ayers Family recently sold their 17-acre lot to a Cedar Park, Texas, development company called Thunder Horse Development, which hopes to subdivide the property. That subdivision, obviously, constituted a significant change and triggered annexation proceedings, an annexation that was completed by the passage of a second reading of the annexation ordinance at the last council meeting. It’s important to note at this point that all land within the city limits of Kyle must bear some kind of zoning designation. Therefore, whenever Kyle annexes unzoned property it arbitrarily applies the designation of Agriculture (or "AG") zoning to that property. Thunder Horse Development is asking the city to rezone the property from AG into a residential designation known as R-1-3, the most dense single family residential zoning Kyle has to offer. This request makes perfect sense considering (1) the relatively small size of the property and (2) its proximity to the city center. (Smart Growth teaches cities should place their highest density zoning at the center of the city and make that zoning less dense in concentric circles further away from the city center.) The no-growth element, of course, wants to kill the project entirely although a few of them mask their intentions by pleading for different types of less-dense development on the property.
Council member Tracy Scheel, whose single-member district includes the property in question, is caught in the political crossfire of this mess. That no-growth contingent that is fighting this plan comprise many of the influentials of that district and there’s a good chance they could determine the outcome of the next city council election for that district seat. She must ask herself, if she crosses this very small group of influentials who could possibly sway the outcome of a single-member district election but never an at-large one, could her re-election wishes be squashed before they’re even started? She must decide whether to act in the best interests of the city as a whole or in the best interests of her political future.
And the real villain here is not Scheel, nor the influentials, or the Ayers Family or even Thunder Horse Development. No, the real villain here is the system that allowed for the single-member districts that can be politically manipulated so easily. It’s single-member districts in a city the size of Kyle that force Scheel into dilemmas and unfair decision making situations like the one I just outlined.
What happened at the last council meeting, in a nutshell, when this item first came up for consideration was that all the no-growth influentials came out to speak against it. It’s an interesting phenomenon, but an accurate one all the same, that only those opposed to something usually show up at City Hall to talk on the subject. This is true not just in Kyle, but everywhere I’ve ever been. Those who support it usually don’t think it’s important enough to take time out of their schedule to make the effort and then there’s the overwhelming majority — those who could care less one way or the other — and you know what they’re going to do.
So Scheel, in a move towards single-member district-driven political expediency, made a motion for a less-dense zoning (known as R-1-2) than Thunder Horse applied for. That motion failed on a 3-3 tie vote (Mayor Pro Tem Shane Arabie did not attend this last meeting). Voting against it were Smart Growth proponents Mayor Travis Mitchell and Damon Fogley along with Daphne Tenorio who is the most avid no-growth proponent on the city council — she will vote against any new zoning for this property. Then Mitchell offered a motion to apply the R-1-3 zoning requested by Thunder Horse, but that, too, failed on a 3-3 vote with Scheel, possibly seeing the demise of her political future flashing before her eyes, joining Tenorio and Alex Villalobos, who is also displaying no-growth voting tendencies, in voting against it.
That accomplished exactly what the no-growthers wanted. It killed the subdivision. At least for two weeks.
Which brings me around to the subject of "regulatory taking." I mentioned earlier that whenever Kyle annexes unzoned property into the city it "arbitrarily" applies the AG zoning designation to it. It doesn’t matter at all what’s on the property. Kyle has annexed land that contained nothing but warehouses, but still that property was zoned AG and those warehouses became non-conforming uses. One definition of regulatory taking, is "a situation in which a government regulation limits the uses of private property to such a degree that the regulation effectively deprives the property owners of economically reasonable use or value of their property to such an extent that it deprives them of utility or value of that property, even though the regulation does not formally divest them of title to it." Here’s the deal here: No one — not the Ayers Family, not Thunder Horse Development, no one — asked for that AG zoning for that property. And that’s OK. But the courts have ruled many times that a city doesn’t have to re-zone property exactly the way the property owner desires, but it must rezone it in some way. Failure to do so results in an illegal regulatory taking. And, as it stands right now, Kyle is guilty of such an illegal activity.
Now if the decision was left to the no-growthers, they would rather have taxpayer dollars spent on fighting legal action involving illegal regulatory taking and even having to make a substantial financial settlement in such a matter than have the Sledge Street subdivision. But is that in the best interests of the city as a whole? And the fact that this question even has to be asked illustrates why single member districts in a city the size of Kyle are not in the best interests of the city as a whole.
Agenda Item 10 on Tuesday’s City Council agenda seeks reconsideration and possible further action on the zoning request from Thunder Horse Development. Scheel’s name is attached to item as the person who requested it be placed on the agenda. I have reached out to her to ask her why she is seeking this reconsideration but to be perfectly truthful I reached out to her late in the day and have not really given her enough time to respond properly. If she does, I will insert her comments here.
But her name being attached the item also brings up another interesting point. Only someone on the prevailing side of a vote can ask for that vote to be reconsidered. Technically, Scheel was on the prevailing side of only the vote on the more dense of the two zoning motions. Shouldn’t that mean that only that R-1-3 zoning request should be reconsidered and that a motion to reconsider R-1-2 would be out of order?
And, of course, there’s the obvious question: Will the council avoid the possibility of yet another tie vote by having all city council members present?
Other than that, there’s nothing else really dramatic on the council agenda, although a couple of items do raise questions.
Question No. 1: Why wasn’t Item 12 — amending ordinances having to do with subdivisions — vetted through the Planning & Zoning Commission (it bears repeating I am a member of that commission, but that’s not why I am asking) before it came to the City Council? Planning Director Howard J. Koontz, in a memo to the council, wrote that the purpose of this request is "so that Kyle’s land use and development controls can accommodate quality development practices and serve to protect all those properties, even outside of the city’s corporate limits," whatever that means. I have posed the above question directly to Koontz, but, like my query to Scheel, this one came late in the day and am hoping for a timely response even if I’m not realistically expecting one. (Updated Monday 1:25 p.m.) Koontz informed me early Monday the reason this item is going directly to council, bypassing P&Z, has to do with timing ("to get the language in place before the middle of next month," he said) as well as the obvious: "that's the process for text amendments to Chapter 41 of the City Code." So there's that. (End of update)
Question No. 2:Does the inclusion of something called "Windy Hill Zoning" as part of the executive session agenda mean that the controversial zoning case involving the desire of a property owner to locate an apartment complex on Windy Hill Road, a desire the property owner argues was guaranteed him by Hays County even though it was rejected by the city, mean that a lawsuit has been filed or his pending against the city in this matter? Or does it have to do with an entirely different subject involving "Windy Hill Zoning"? Since this is an executive session matter, there’s no one who will go on the record with information about this, at least not right now. But that’s not going to stop me from raising the question.
I must also admit to a certain curiosity about an economic development prospect to be discussed in executive session that has been dubbed "The Last Mile." The mind reels at the possibilities. Is the prison on the southeast edge of town thinking about installing a death row? Nahh!! That can’t be it. That’s not a maximum security facility. When it was on the last council agenda, I thought it might have had something to with the purchase of the property that will allow the city to extend Marketplace Boulevard from the Burleson Road roundabout to the I-35 frontage road. But I thought that was all settled now. It probably has something to do with property owner negotiations in connection with one of the road bond projects, but, still, that "last mile" moniker conjures up all kinds of possibilities.
Talk to most good government experts and they’ll agree. Single member city council districts work efficiently only in cities with a population of at least 100,000 (cities as large as Seattle elect all council members at large) and the Sledge Street zoning folly is a perfect example of why this is so. The reason for this has to do with voter turnout. Too often in municipal elections the percentage of registered voters who come to the polls are in the single digits. Kyle is no exception. Historically, voter turnout hovers around 8 percent. That means only a small handful of people decide who runs the government and when cities with smaller populations carve those cities into individual voting districts, that pool of voters who decide the outcome is minuscule.
That’s the reason many of those citizens of Kyle who were the major influentials of Kyle’s elections in the past are solidly opposed to Kyle’s growth today. If growth results in the pool of voters growing larger — even if the small percentages remain unchanged — their influence diminishes proportionately (not to mention rapidly).
Which brings me back to "The Nightmare on Sledge Street." This property was owned for years by Tom and Mary Ayers who, like many of their neighboring property owners, secured development agreements with the city that kept them from having their property annexed into the city limits during annexation proceedings that occurred during the last couple of years. One of the caveats of the agreement, however, was the property could not be changed in any significant way. But the Ayers Family recently sold their 17-acre lot to a Cedar Park, Texas, development company called Thunder Horse Development, which hopes to subdivide the property. That subdivision, obviously, constituted a significant change and triggered annexation proceedings, an annexation that was completed by the passage of a second reading of the annexation ordinance at the last council meeting. It’s important to note at this point that all land within the city limits of Kyle must bear some kind of zoning designation. Therefore, whenever Kyle annexes unzoned property it arbitrarily applies the designation of Agriculture (or "AG") zoning to that property. Thunder Horse Development is asking the city to rezone the property from AG into a residential designation known as R-1-3, the most dense single family residential zoning Kyle has to offer. This request makes perfect sense considering (1) the relatively small size of the property and (2) its proximity to the city center. (Smart Growth teaches cities should place their highest density zoning at the center of the city and make that zoning less dense in concentric circles further away from the city center.) The no-growth element, of course, wants to kill the project entirely although a few of them mask their intentions by pleading for different types of less-dense development on the property.
Council member Tracy Scheel, whose single-member district includes the property in question, is caught in the political crossfire of this mess. That no-growth contingent that is fighting this plan comprise many of the influentials of that district and there’s a good chance they could determine the outcome of the next city council election for that district seat. She must ask herself, if she crosses this very small group of influentials who could possibly sway the outcome of a single-member district election but never an at-large one, could her re-election wishes be squashed before they’re even started? She must decide whether to act in the best interests of the city as a whole or in the best interests of her political future.
And the real villain here is not Scheel, nor the influentials, or the Ayers Family or even Thunder Horse Development. No, the real villain here is the system that allowed for the single-member districts that can be politically manipulated so easily. It’s single-member districts in a city the size of Kyle that force Scheel into dilemmas and unfair decision making situations like the one I just outlined.
What happened at the last council meeting, in a nutshell, when this item first came up for consideration was that all the no-growth influentials came out to speak against it. It’s an interesting phenomenon, but an accurate one all the same, that only those opposed to something usually show up at City Hall to talk on the subject. This is true not just in Kyle, but everywhere I’ve ever been. Those who support it usually don’t think it’s important enough to take time out of their schedule to make the effort and then there’s the overwhelming majority — those who could care less one way or the other — and you know what they’re going to do.
So Scheel, in a move towards single-member district-driven political expediency, made a motion for a less-dense zoning (known as R-1-2) than Thunder Horse applied for. That motion failed on a 3-3 tie vote (Mayor Pro Tem Shane Arabie did not attend this last meeting). Voting against it were Smart Growth proponents Mayor Travis Mitchell and Damon Fogley along with Daphne Tenorio who is the most avid no-growth proponent on the city council — she will vote against any new zoning for this property. Then Mitchell offered a motion to apply the R-1-3 zoning requested by Thunder Horse, but that, too, failed on a 3-3 vote with Scheel, possibly seeing the demise of her political future flashing before her eyes, joining Tenorio and Alex Villalobos, who is also displaying no-growth voting tendencies, in voting against it.
That accomplished exactly what the no-growthers wanted. It killed the subdivision. At least for two weeks.
Which brings me around to the subject of "regulatory taking." I mentioned earlier that whenever Kyle annexes unzoned property into the city it "arbitrarily" applies the AG zoning designation to it. It doesn’t matter at all what’s on the property. Kyle has annexed land that contained nothing but warehouses, but still that property was zoned AG and those warehouses became non-conforming uses. One definition of regulatory taking, is "a situation in which a government regulation limits the uses of private property to such a degree that the regulation effectively deprives the property owners of economically reasonable use or value of their property to such an extent that it deprives them of utility or value of that property, even though the regulation does not formally divest them of title to it." Here’s the deal here: No one — not the Ayers Family, not Thunder Horse Development, no one — asked for that AG zoning for that property. And that’s OK. But the courts have ruled many times that a city doesn’t have to re-zone property exactly the way the property owner desires, but it must rezone it in some way. Failure to do so results in an illegal regulatory taking. And, as it stands right now, Kyle is guilty of such an illegal activity.
Now if the decision was left to the no-growthers, they would rather have taxpayer dollars spent on fighting legal action involving illegal regulatory taking and even having to make a substantial financial settlement in such a matter than have the Sledge Street subdivision. But is that in the best interests of the city as a whole? And the fact that this question even has to be asked illustrates why single member districts in a city the size of Kyle are not in the best interests of the city as a whole.
Agenda Item 10 on Tuesday’s City Council agenda seeks reconsideration and possible further action on the zoning request from Thunder Horse Development. Scheel’s name is attached to item as the person who requested it be placed on the agenda. I have reached out to her to ask her why she is seeking this reconsideration but to be perfectly truthful I reached out to her late in the day and have not really given her enough time to respond properly. If she does, I will insert her comments here.
But her name being attached the item also brings up another interesting point. Only someone on the prevailing side of a vote can ask for that vote to be reconsidered. Technically, Scheel was on the prevailing side of only the vote on the more dense of the two zoning motions. Shouldn’t that mean that only that R-1-3 zoning request should be reconsidered and that a motion to reconsider R-1-2 would be out of order?
And, of course, there’s the obvious question: Will the council avoid the possibility of yet another tie vote by having all city council members present?
Other than that, there’s nothing else really dramatic on the council agenda, although a couple of items do raise questions.
Question No. 1: Why wasn’t Item 12 — amending ordinances having to do with subdivisions — vetted through the Planning & Zoning Commission (it bears repeating I am a member of that commission, but that’s not why I am asking) before it came to the City Council? Planning Director Howard J. Koontz, in a memo to the council, wrote that the purpose of this request is "so that Kyle’s land use and development controls can accommodate quality development practices and serve to protect all those properties, even outside of the city’s corporate limits," whatever that means. I have posed the above question directly to Koontz, but, like my query to Scheel, this one came late in the day and am hoping for a timely response even if I’m not realistically expecting one. (Updated Monday 1:25 p.m.) Koontz informed me early Monday the reason this item is going directly to council, bypassing P&Z, has to do with timing ("to get the language in place before the middle of next month," he said) as well as the obvious: "that's the process for text amendments to Chapter 41 of the City Code." So there's that. (End of update)
Question No. 2:Does the inclusion of something called "Windy Hill Zoning" as part of the executive session agenda mean that the controversial zoning case involving the desire of a property owner to locate an apartment complex on Windy Hill Road, a desire the property owner argues was guaranteed him by Hays County even though it was rejected by the city, mean that a lawsuit has been filed or his pending against the city in this matter? Or does it have to do with an entirely different subject involving "Windy Hill Zoning"? Since this is an executive session matter, there’s no one who will go on the record with information about this, at least not right now. But that’s not going to stop me from raising the question.
I must also admit to a certain curiosity about an economic development prospect to be discussed in executive session that has been dubbed "The Last Mile." The mind reels at the possibilities. Is the prison on the southeast edge of town thinking about installing a death row? Nahh!! That can’t be it. That’s not a maximum security facility. When it was on the last council agenda, I thought it might have had something to with the purchase of the property that will allow the city to extend Marketplace Boulevard from the Burleson Road roundabout to the I-35 frontage road. But I thought that was all settled now. It probably has something to do with property owner negotiations in connection with one of the road bond projects, but, still, that "last mile" moniker conjures up all kinds of possibilities.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
City to eliminate I-35 frontage road exit to Burleson
The city took the first steps last night toward instituting major changes in the Burleson Road bond project which will eliminate the I-35 frontage road exit to Burleson Road, replace it by extending Marketplace Road and include the northern tip of Burleson being transformed into a cul-de-sac south of Plum Creek.
Following a two-hour executive session at the end of last night’s City Council meeting, the council voted unanimously to approve the purchase of property that will permit the city to extend Marketplace Road from the Burleson roundabout, where Marketplace currently terminates, to the frontage road, which will serve as the new connection between Burleson and the interstate.
The current Burleson-frontage road intersection, which is essentially a fork in the frontage road, has been the site of a number of traffic accidents, some of which have resulted in fatalities.
The project will be part of the Burleson Road bond project and will actually be accelerated, according to City Manager Scott Sellers, so work on that Marketplace extension will be completed as the reconstruction of Burleson from downtown is underway..
Following the executive session, council member Alex Villalobos made the motion to approve a contract with "the Maddox parties" to purchase the property that will allow the city to extend Burleson from the roundabout.
"This is the purchase of land to construct the extension of Marketplace so that Marketplace will continue, as part of the Burleson project, from the roundabout to the frontage road," Sellers explained after the council’s meeting adjourned. "And, as part of the Burleson project we’re going to cul-de-sac Burleson prior to Plum Creek, so we avoid the low-water crossing and then eliminate the exit onto Burleson from the frontage road. So this is basically new, nicer, safer exit onto Marketplace from the frontage road."
Sellers did not state exactly when work on this phase of the project will begin.
"Once we hear back from CAMPO, we’re going to bid the project and include that little stretch as an add-alternate," the city manager explained. "So it’s not included in the base bid for Burleson, but as soon as we hear back from CAMPO, we’ll bid it.
"If we can, since it’s an add-alternate, we’ll try to get the contractor to do that in an earlier phase of the project," Sellers added. "Originally they were going to phase it downtown and then work their way north. Because it’s an add-alternate, if the phasing works out and the utility relocations have already worked out for it, we can get that done simultaneously with other phases. So we can get that extension built quickly."
In other transportation-related news coming from last night’s council meeting, Sellers outlined plans for a 12-mile east-west foot trail, and perhaps eventually a hike/bike trail, that could stretch from the vicinity of the city’s wastewater treatment plant to the banks of the Blanco River, much of if along the pathway of Plum Creek.
"We understand a city-wide trail system is important to the quality of life of our residents," Sellers told the council in outlining the concept for the project.
Sellers said what pushed the trail project now was the fact that he was contacted by representatives from Hays High School who were seeking ideas for that the city manager called "a very large senior class project to leave as a legacy for the community." He said they came to the agreement that beginning work on a citywide trail would be "a great project, not just this year, but for multiple years to come."
He said the trail-building will formally kick off March 3, in conjunction with a clean-up effort taking place along Plum Creek that same day. While one group of volunteers will be removing litter from the stream and its banks, the group from Hays High School will "take trail segments and clear them to a fashion where they are passable. For the foreseeable future, it will be a primitive nature trail, but it will be cleared four to eight feet, hopefully from the wastewater treatment plant at least through Waterleaf Park. And that’s several miles of trail in just that segment.
"Ultimately, we’re probably looking at 12 miles of trail when the whole segment gets built out," Sellers said. "Our ultimate goal is to have some sort of a paved surface many years from now. But, for now, there’s no reason why the public can’t be out there utilizing, enjoying the trail."
The other major action at last night’s meeting was, for all practical purposes, no action at all which came perilously close to killing a 17-acre subdivision along South Sledge Street, until one council member jumped in at the last minute to preserve the battle for another day. The developer was seeking R-1-3 zoning for the development which is the most-dense single family detached residential zoning available. Some council members felt that was too dense but a motion to approve a zoning that was slightly less dense failed on a tie vote (Mayor Pro Tem Shane Arabie reported work-related issues prevented him from attending last night’s meeting). However, a motion to approve the requested zoning also failed on a tie vote, which, if the matter had ended there, would have stopped the development dead in its tracks. After the proverbial pregnant pause, council member Tracy Scheel, who had made the original motion for the less-dense zoning and voted against the requested zoning, asked that the item be reconsidered at a future meeting, preferably one in which Arabie could participate.. I believe Arabie, had he been present at this meeting, would have landed on the side of the requested zoning, but he reportedly told the mayor in a telephone conversation that he could go "either way" on the subject. Stay tuned.
The council also approved, without any debate, Villalobos’s latest nominee, Scott Bowman, to the Ethics Commission. After reading Bowman’s impressive resume, I felt a position on the city’s Ethics Commission might even be beneath him and, instead, he should be up for a nomination to an Ethics Hall of Fame, if such an institution even exits. Trust me on this: Bowman’s credentials appear impeccable, to say the least.
Following a two-hour executive session at the end of last night’s City Council meeting, the council voted unanimously to approve the purchase of property that will permit the city to extend Marketplace Road from the Burleson roundabout, where Marketplace currently terminates, to the frontage road, which will serve as the new connection between Burleson and the interstate.
The current Burleson-frontage road intersection, which is essentially a fork in the frontage road, has been the site of a number of traffic accidents, some of which have resulted in fatalities.
The project will be part of the Burleson Road bond project and will actually be accelerated, according to City Manager Scott Sellers, so work on that Marketplace extension will be completed as the reconstruction of Burleson from downtown is underway..
Following the executive session, council member Alex Villalobos made the motion to approve a contract with "the Maddox parties" to purchase the property that will allow the city to extend Burleson from the roundabout.
"This is the purchase of land to construct the extension of Marketplace so that Marketplace will continue, as part of the Burleson project, from the roundabout to the frontage road," Sellers explained after the council’s meeting adjourned. "And, as part of the Burleson project we’re going to cul-de-sac Burleson prior to Plum Creek, so we avoid the low-water crossing and then eliminate the exit onto Burleson from the frontage road. So this is basically new, nicer, safer exit onto Marketplace from the frontage road."
Sellers did not state exactly when work on this phase of the project will begin.
"Once we hear back from CAMPO, we’re going to bid the project and include that little stretch as an add-alternate," the city manager explained. "So it’s not included in the base bid for Burleson, but as soon as we hear back from CAMPO, we’ll bid it.
"If we can, since it’s an add-alternate, we’ll try to get the contractor to do that in an earlier phase of the project," Sellers added. "Originally they were going to phase it downtown and then work their way north. Because it’s an add-alternate, if the phasing works out and the utility relocations have already worked out for it, we can get that done simultaneously with other phases. So we can get that extension built quickly."
In other transportation-related news coming from last night’s council meeting, Sellers outlined plans for a 12-mile east-west foot trail, and perhaps eventually a hike/bike trail, that could stretch from the vicinity of the city’s wastewater treatment plant to the banks of the Blanco River, much of if along the pathway of Plum Creek.
"We understand a city-wide trail system is important to the quality of life of our residents," Sellers told the council in outlining the concept for the project.
Sellers said what pushed the trail project now was the fact that he was contacted by representatives from Hays High School who were seeking ideas for that the city manager called "a very large senior class project to leave as a legacy for the community." He said they came to the agreement that beginning work on a citywide trail would be "a great project, not just this year, but for multiple years to come."
He said the trail-building will formally kick off March 3, in conjunction with a clean-up effort taking place along Plum Creek that same day. While one group of volunteers will be removing litter from the stream and its banks, the group from Hays High School will "take trail segments and clear them to a fashion where they are passable. For the foreseeable future, it will be a primitive nature trail, but it will be cleared four to eight feet, hopefully from the wastewater treatment plant at least through Waterleaf Park. And that’s several miles of trail in just that segment.
"Ultimately, we’re probably looking at 12 miles of trail when the whole segment gets built out," Sellers said. "Our ultimate goal is to have some sort of a paved surface many years from now. But, for now, there’s no reason why the public can’t be out there utilizing, enjoying the trail."
The other major action at last night’s meeting was, for all practical purposes, no action at all which came perilously close to killing a 17-acre subdivision along South Sledge Street, until one council member jumped in at the last minute to preserve the battle for another day. The developer was seeking R-1-3 zoning for the development which is the most-dense single family detached residential zoning available. Some council members felt that was too dense but a motion to approve a zoning that was slightly less dense failed on a tie vote (Mayor Pro Tem Shane Arabie reported work-related issues prevented him from attending last night’s meeting). However, a motion to approve the requested zoning also failed on a tie vote, which, if the matter had ended there, would have stopped the development dead in its tracks. After the proverbial pregnant pause, council member Tracy Scheel, who had made the original motion for the less-dense zoning and voted against the requested zoning, asked that the item be reconsidered at a future meeting, preferably one in which Arabie could participate.. I believe Arabie, had he been present at this meeting, would have landed on the side of the requested zoning, but he reportedly told the mayor in a telephone conversation that he could go "either way" on the subject. Stay tuned.
The council also approved, without any debate, Villalobos’s latest nominee, Scott Bowman, to the Ethics Commission. After reading Bowman’s impressive resume, I felt a position on the city’s Ethics Commission might even be beneath him and, instead, he should be up for a nomination to an Ethics Hall of Fame, if such an institution even exits. Trust me on this: Bowman’s credentials appear impeccable, to say the least.
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Secretary of State’s office torpedoes Rizo’s council candidacy
Robert Rizo had every reason to believe he lived inside the city limits of Kyle, if, for no other reason, than the fact he’s been billed for and dutifully paid his city property taxes for close to three decades, if not longer. It was only when he filed to run for the District 2 seat on the Kyle City Council that he learned otherwise.
A copy of Rizo’s application to be a candidate, along with the applications of the nine other candidates who filed to run in the November election, were sent to the Secretary of State’s office, which oversees all elections in Texas and which reviews all such applications to make sure all the candidates meet all the state eligibility requirements. And that’s when, multiple sources have told The Kyle Report, the Secretary of State’s office informed city officials that, while a small sliver of the land Rizo has been paying taxes on lies within the city limits, the overwhelming majority of it, including the residence Rizo listed on his application and, even more importantly, on his voter registration, does not. Thus, the Secretary of State’s office ruled, Rizo was ineligible to run because state law requires a candidate to be registered to vote "in the territory from which the office is elected."
The city, these sources said, tried to find some kind of a loophole to let him stay on the ballot, but, in the end, were not successful.
The only upside of all this for Rizo, the sources confirmed, is that he is eligible for a refund on the city property taxes he’s paid, but only those he’s paid during the last five years. None of the sources who talked about this on background said they knew of a legal recourse available to Rizo to get his name back on the ballot, meaning Tracy Scheel will become the next city council person for District 2 following the November elections.
Bill Sinor was also indirectly affected by the Secretary of State’s ruling. Sinor originally filed to run for the District 2 seat, but subsequently withdrew his candidacy for that position and threw his hat into the ring with three others to run for mayor. I do not know whether Rizo’s decision to run in District 2 had any effect on Sinor’s decision to drop out of that race, but records show Sinor withdrew after Rizo filed.
A copy of Rizo’s application to be a candidate, along with the applications of the nine other candidates who filed to run in the November election, were sent to the Secretary of State’s office, which oversees all elections in Texas and which reviews all such applications to make sure all the candidates meet all the state eligibility requirements. And that’s when, multiple sources have told The Kyle Report, the Secretary of State’s office informed city officials that, while a small sliver of the land Rizo has been paying taxes on lies within the city limits, the overwhelming majority of it, including the residence Rizo listed on his application and, even more importantly, on his voter registration, does not. Thus, the Secretary of State’s office ruled, Rizo was ineligible to run because state law requires a candidate to be registered to vote "in the territory from which the office is elected."
The city, these sources said, tried to find some kind of a loophole to let him stay on the ballot, but, in the end, were not successful.
The only upside of all this for Rizo, the sources confirmed, is that he is eligible for a refund on the city property taxes he’s paid, but only those he’s paid during the last five years. None of the sources who talked about this on background said they knew of a legal recourse available to Rizo to get his name back on the ballot, meaning Tracy Scheel will become the next city council person for District 2 following the November elections.
Bill Sinor was also indirectly affected by the Secretary of State’s ruling. Sinor originally filed to run for the District 2 seat, but subsequently withdrew his candidacy for that position and threw his hat into the ring with three others to run for mayor. I do not know whether Rizo’s decision to run in District 2 had any effect on Sinor’s decision to drop out of that race, but records show Sinor withdrew after Rizo filed.
Scheel now unopposed in District 2
For reasons that are not all that clear, Tracy Scheel is now the only person who will be listed on the ballot for the Kyle City Council District 2 seat being vacated by Becky Selbera. City Secretary Jennifer Vetrano informed Scheel of the development today during the drawing for the order in which the candidate’s names will appear on the Nov. 7 ballot.
Vetrano said name of Robert Rizo, the only other candidate to file for the District 2 seat, has been pulled from the ballot. Vitrano said the reason Rizo was disqualified from running was "Article 141.00A6" of the Texas Election Code. Such an article doesn’t exist, however. The closest thing I could find was Section 141.001 (a) (6) which states a candidate for election must "on the date described by Subdivision (5), be registered to vote in the territory from which the office is elected." My efforts to reach Rizo were unsuccessful.
That means, of course, barring unforseen legal actions, Scheel will be the District 2 city council representative.
As a result of today’s drawing, here’s the order in which the names will appear on the ballot
Mayor
Vetrano said name of Robert Rizo, the only other candidate to file for the District 2 seat, has been pulled from the ballot. Vitrano said the reason Rizo was disqualified from running was "Article 141.00A6" of the Texas Election Code. Such an article doesn’t exist, however. The closest thing I could find was Section 141.001 (a) (6) which states a candidate for election must "on the date described by Subdivision (5), be registered to vote in the territory from which the office is elected." My efforts to reach Rizo were unsuccessful.
That means, of course, barring unforseen legal actions, Scheel will be the District 2 city council representative.
As a result of today’s drawing, here’s the order in which the names will appear on the ballot
Mayor
- Bill Sinor
- Jaime Sanchez
- Nicole Romero-Piche
- Travis Mitchell
- Marco Pizana (although it might appear as Pizana, Marco)
- Dex Ellison
- Alex Villalobos
- Tim R. McHutchion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)