Looking for answers to questions raised by "routine" council agenda

A quick perusal of Tuesday’s City Council agenda suggests that, providing the four individuals scheduled to make the five scheduled presentations aren’t terribly long winded, providing not that many items are pulled from the consent agenda and providing it doesn’t take the city attorney all that long to explain to the individual council members’ satisfaction during executive session all the terms and conditions of a possible development agreement, the meeting might be one of the briefer ones this year.

Of course, that’s a lot of "providings."

And it doesn’t answer a pair of questions I had following my quick perusal of said agenda, namely:

1. If the council is to consider and possibly "adopt minimum requirements for board and commission membership," does that mean that for all these years the city has had no "minimum requirements" for membership?

And

2. Where in heaven’s name is Philomena Drive?

(And as a subset to No. 2 above: Why is there no "Bagel Street" intersecting "Lox Lane"?)

Seriously, the subset question will undoubtedly not be addressed during the city manager’s "update on the traffic signal at FM 150 and Lox Lane," right there at Tobias Elementary, but hopefully during his presentation he will answer the question of why the council won’t get another budget briefing after this meeting for another four and a half months. According to the calendar City Manager Scott Sellers will present to the council Tuesday, city departments must present their proposed budgets to him no later than May 5. Yet he doesn’t begin meeting with department heads to review those budgets until almost four weeks later, on May 30. That review process, according to his calendar presentation, ends June 9, yet it’s another six weeks after that before the city council receives a line item budget for review. That means in the almost 20 weeks between Tuesday, when Sellers presents his schedule, and July 21, when the council receives the line-item budget, there is no formal communications between staff and the council on the status of the single most important document that staff and the council must deal with each year.

I could argue that Sellers could shorten the interval between the time department heads submit their requests and when they are reviewed. I could also argue that, based upon those reviews, Sellers could brief the council on the status of the budget, what areas he plans to emphasize in terms of spending, and, in return, get some feedback from the council on the direction the members would like to take the budget. Overall, I just think there needs to be more council oversight in the entire budget preparation process based on additional qualitative communications between staff and the council.

One item I wouldn’t mind seeing pulled from the consent agenda is No. 11, the second reading of an ordinance changing the zoning on land at 602 Creekside Trail from agriculture to a Planned Unit Development that includes a neighborhood commercial element. The current owners of the property want to develop it as a senior living center and are asking for the neighborhood commercial zoning to accommodate a 10,000-square-foot community center and administrative building. In considering the zoning request, however, what the applicants "plan" to put on the land is irrelevant; what must be considered is whether the zoning fits with the surrounding area. On the surface it does. There appears to be some condominiums less than a mile south of the land on Creekside and there’s a "neighborhood commercial" Shell service station at the corner of Creekside and FM 150. But here’s my problem: In making the zoning decision the council must look at all possible uses in neighborhood commercial zoning and those uses include restaurants (without drive-throughs), art galleries, veterinarians, barber/beauty shops, dance studios, the ubiquitous "retail," plus a number of other uses. Again, there’s nothing wrong with any of that; in fact, all those additions and more could fit perfectly well in this location if it wasn’t for that dang road. That section of Creekside Trail between the aforementioned condos and this property is a narrow one-lane road and I, for one, can’t see that narrow a passageway being able to adequately serve the various uses allowed by neighborhood commercial zoning. According to documents presented with this proposal, the Kyle Transportation Master Plan 2045 argues that Creekside Trail needs to be widened to two lanes and extended across Plum Creek to the intersection of Goforth Road and Bunton Lane. However, this project is not a part of the city’s current five-year capital improvements plan. Now I’ve heard the developers pledge to widen the road should their zoning be approved, but the City can’t hold them to that agreement as part of the zoning change. By the same token, there’s been no assurances as to the standards to be used for the street improvements. Will it be something the City will soon have to find the funds needed to maintain and repair? Those questions can’t be answered now and for that reason — even though I have absolutely no reservations about a senior living/hospice care facility at that location — I would support denying the zoning request. It passed two weeks ago by the narrowest margins and it would take only one of those supporters — Mayor Todd Webster, Mayor Pro Tem Damon Fogley, David Wilson or Travis Mitchell (who called his decision one of the toughest he had to make recently) — to change their vote.

The agenda contains only three items for consideration and possible action.

The first is an ordinance to rename the successfully obscure Philomena Drive to something else. Exactly what else, I guess we’ll learn Tuesday evening (since its new name is not addressed in the agenda or the accompanying proposed ordinance) as well as where Philomena Drive is located. My attempts to locate it using Google Maps have been somewhat fruitless except for the hint that it might have something to do offices of homebuilder D.R. Horton, whose current address is listed as 123 Devonshire Lane, a block south of Beebee Lane, just east of the CommuiCare Health Centers. So the evidence suggests that this item is designed to give an unknown name to an unknown street.

A second item on this part of the agenda is the announcement that "the city now (emphasis mine) chooses to publish an official written policy for the process and procedures used to fill Board and Commission vacancies," which, to me at least, means the city had no "official written policy" on this subject before and that perhaps an unofficial policy that consisted of a coin flip or a whim or a game of one paper-scissors-rock decided who filled these vacancies. Under this new policy, "New applicants for volunteer positions should demonstrate the morals and character traits expected of regular city employees," which, it could be argued, is a higher standard than is required of those seeking election to the City Council. It also begs the question of exactly how many dastardly immoral persons lacking these character traits expected of regular city employees have already been named to various boards and commissions. As for the "process" itself? "Utilizing information provided by the applicant and cursory background checks by staff, potential board and commission members will be vetted for their ability to serve and appropriateness for the position solicited. A final in-person interview with staff will help affirm or refute the pre-selected candidate’s qualifications. Those individuals selected for service after the interview process still must be confirmed by the City Council prior to service." I have absolutely no problem with any of that. My question remains: If this is the process "the city now" wishes to employ, what is the process that is currently being used? It’s worth finding out because then that policy will continue to be in effect in the admittedly unlikely event this item fails to win approval.

It’s worth noting that the final item for consideration and possible action is the consideration of two City Council nominations to represent Kyle on the Capital Area Council of Governments (CAPCOG) General Assembly. According to CAPCOG’s website, the two current Kyle representatives are Lucy Johnson and Samantha Lemense, which provides somewhat of an idea of high replacing them ranks on the city’s priority scale.

No public hearings are scheduled for Tuesday’s meeting, so any citizens with something to say (preferably) about any of the items on the agenda or (much less preferably) anything else, they must do so during the Citizens Comments period at the beginning of the 7 p.m. session.