As part of its ambitious plan to remake Mary Kyle Hartson City Square Park, the City is planning on constructing a building across Burleson from the park. It plans to lease parts of the planned three-story structure for, among other items, a restaurant. The City has already issued a request for proposals from prospective restaurant tenants who might have an interest in taking on such a lease. All well and good … except, true to my nature, there was some wording in the RFP that disturbed me. So, eight days ago, I sent the following message via e-mail to Mayor Travis Mitchell as well as the other six members of the Kyle City Council:
“I am writing this note because of concerns I have about the wording in the City's solicitation of a tenant to operate a restaurant at the city-owned facility on Burleson.
“The first thing that concerns me is the phrase ‘potential tenants will then be considered by City Council in Executive session (sic) under Economic Incentives.’ I am hoping this does not mean that the names of the potential operators who are being considered will not be made public. I fully understand why any discussion about incentives should be reserved for an executive session, but I would forcefully argue that citizen input concerning those being considered to operate the restaurant would be an important, if not THE MOST important, consideration the council could receive in this decision-making process.
“I strongly recommend that the names of the operators the council plans to consider, along with a brief description of the type of restaurant those operators envision, be announced promptly via a release from the City's Communications Department (which is why I have copied the director of that department in this e-mail) immediately after the noon deadline on April 9.
“I also have concerns about the sentence in the published RFP that reads ‘The City reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals and to accept only those proposals which are in the best interest of the City of Kyle.’ My concerns are (1) who at the City will be judging whether ‘to accept or reject’ a proposal; (2) who, if different from the aforementioned decision-maker, will be the person to decide which proposals ‘are in the best interest of the City of Kyle;’ and (3) on what basis will these decisions be made?
“Thank you in advance for addressing these concerns.”
The success or failure or any type of culinary concern depends entirely on the acceptance of it and the steady use of it by the public, especially that public that is already inclined to spend significant amounts of time in downtown Kyle. So, at least to my way of thinking, it would stand to reason that the City Council would want to gauge as early in the process as possible what types of restaurants would be greeted at least positively if not enthusiastically by that public. However, in order to begin measuring any levels of enthusiasm or anticipation, that public must be made aware of what’s coming. However, anything “considered by the City Council in executive session” is, by definition, not part of the public record. These discussions are held behind closed doors.
As I wrote in the letter, I understand why any sort of discussions about incentives would be part of an executive session discussion. You don’t want Buda, or Wimberly, or Dripping Springs or some other burg to know the substance of these discussions and say “Well, darn, we can beat that deal. Let’s try to steal this away from Kyle with a better offer.”
But who the prospective tenants are and what kind of operation they envision for 104 S. Burleson should definitely be made as public. In fact, the City should scream this information from the roof of Old City Hall at City Square Park. This is information that will ignite an immediate reaction from the public — a public, if recent history is any precedent, and I believe it is — that will not hesitate to make that reaction known to city officials. I used to know a lady who made an incredible bread pudding with Amaretto sauce that was to die for. And I wasn’t the only person who recognized this. Her bread pudding was sold by no less than the downtown Dallas Neiman-Marcus department store. The late Ross Perot ordered a big batch of her delicacy whenever he hosted a dinner party. And in the corner of a Plano antique store, she and her partner operated a tea room restaurant that served soups, salads, sandwiches and, of course, that magnificent Amaretto bread pudding. I mention this only because if I learned someone desired to operate such a tea room restaurant at 104 S. Burleson I would go so far as to create a PAC or any other kind of political mechanism to make such an establishment a reality. But, the first step, of course, is knowing about it.
The last thing this City Council needs is Fajita Street Redux. If there was ever a selection process that required public input long before a final decision is made, it’s this one. I’ve never known anyone who refused to drive down a street because they objected to the street name. The traffic patterns on RM 150 will not be altered one iota because it is being renamed Veterans Drive instead of Fajita Street. But the success of a restaurant depends on public support and it seems to me the City would want to know which ventures are likely to receive the most public support.
And, yes, I do have concerns about who at the City will be the arbiter on which proposals to accept and which to reject, or which proposals are in the best interests of the city and which are not. Confession: I am a carnivore and, frankly, I am not comfortable with a diehard vegetarian making these decisions at a City-managed facility. And what kind of a restaurant would not be in the city’s best interests? Please, somebody tell me that, because I have absolutely no idea. As I just admitted, a vegetarian restaurant would not be in my best interests, but my best interests don’t necessarily translate to the rest of the populace. I would guess that a restaurant in the Pie Capital of Texas that specialized in steak-and-kidney pies may not be readily welcomed, but it certainly could be argued that such an establishment would be in the city’s best interest, especially when it comes to promoting its brand. Is this decision-maker someone steeped in successful restaurant operations? What credentials does this person possess that gives him or her the knowledge to make these decisions that will affect a significant segment of the population and could easily have a significant impact on the city’s taxable income? Has some kind of point system been concocted that will be employed in making these decisions? Will the city, hopefully, be giving extra weight to women and minority tenant submissions?
I have rarely jumped on the “City must be more transparent” bandwagon because, in most of these instances, the city has been transparent; the public is upset because it hasn’t been spoon-fed. But this is a situation where transparency right from the get-go could mean the difference between success and failure of this enterprise.
And perhaps they will conduct this operation completely in the open. Perhaps I am worrying over nothing.
And perhaps at least one member of the City Council could have responded to my e-mail to let me know I had nothing to be concerned about.
No comments:
Post a Comment