Budgets and annexations — two for the price of one

It happens every year on the last Saturday of July. The city council, the city manager, the finance director, various city department heads, the assistant city manager and the chief of staff gather around some tables grouped together in the council’s City Hall chambers to see and hear the first public presentation of the city manager’s proposed budget for the fiscal year that will begin in a little more than two months following the presentation. This will not be the council’s first view of the budget — the individual council members will receive a copy of it at the beginning of that week — but this will be the first time they will congregate as a body to talk about it and, of course, it will be the public’s first exposure to the city’s most important annual presentation. Which reminds me of a problem I have with the way the council conducts citizen comments during council meetings and the way the council’s agenda is arranged, but I’ll get back to that.

This year the last Saturday in July is on the 28^th and that’s why, if you look at the meetings section of the city’s web page you will find a listing for a "Kyle Special City Council Meeting" scheduled for 8 a.m. on that day. But this year, that special 8 a.m. meeting on the last Saturday in July is going to include more than just a discussion of the manager’s proposed budget. It’s going to include annexations as well.

According to notices that appeared in this week’s edition of the Hays Free Press, the council will host the second public hearings on four proposed annexations totaling 259.59 acres. Granted, a total of 259.59 acres is not a lot to annex — about .4 of a square mile — so an 8 a.m. on a Saturday time is not going to inconvenience that many — if any — citizens who want to testify at said hearings. But, still, it’s interesting that the second public hearings on these four annexations will be held during what normally is a meeting reserved exclusively to discuss the proposed budget.

Which brings me back to the first of the two topics I said above I would return to, specifically, the way the council conducts citizen comments. These are always held at the beginning of each council meeting and there’s nothing wrong with that. However, if the council really desired to solicit meaningful comments from its citizens it would also include on its agenda a citizens comment period at the end of the meetings as well. And the upcoming annexation-budget "Kyle Special City Council Meeting" on the 28^th is a perfect example of why a second comments section should be included. Although an agenda for this meeting hasn’t been posted it’s reasonable to assume it will feature, most likely, in this order 1. Citizens comments period; 2. Annexation public hearings and 3. Budget presentation. But how in heaven’s name are citizens going to be able to comment on the most important item of this meeting — the proposed budget — before they have any idea of what’s in the budget proposal? And they won’t know that until after the one and only citizens comments period has ended. This is compounded by the fact that the Kyle City Council is composed of individuals who, by design, do not take the initiative they should to inform constituents of the contents of the city manager’s proposed budget. I have spent the last four years attempting to shame council members into hosting budget town hall meetings, but to no avail. These folks feel no obligation towards keeping their constituents informed on the most important decisions they will make as council members or to seek input from their constituents about those decisions. I was talking with Jerry Hendrix, the city’s chief of staff, yesterday on a completely different subject (specifically mobility management when the city reaches a population over 100,000, expected in 22 years) and he said the city would do what it could to facilitate such budget town hall meetings — going so far as to design and produce a budget presentation slide show that could be featured at the meetings — but no council member has even inquired about one. Of course it can be argued that the council will hold four additional meetings on the budget — public hearings on Aug. 14 and Aug. 21, and formal budget adoption readings on Aug. 28 and Sept. 4 — and the public can make their opinions on the budget known on these occasions. But these meetings require the citizenry to come to the council; why does the council feel it doesn’t need to take the message out to the citizenry?

What makes this even more criminal is that every so often a council member will don their dunce cap, swallow another stupid pill and proclaim "We need to make sure our citizens are aware of this," whatever the particular "this" happens to be at that moment. They seem to think there’s this magic wand that is somehow going to be waved infusing widespread knowledge into the cranium of every resident in the city. Don’t they realize that they — the council members themselves — are the citizens’ link to their city government, the conduit for the transfer of information and knowledge? That one of the principle things they were elected to do was to keep those folks who voted for them informed about what’s going on at City Hall? How badly they have shirked this responsibility would be laughable if it didn’t border on criminally negligent. Unfortunately, they look upon public service as an opportunity to grandstand, but not to serve and inform.

The argument I have heard from one or more council members against having such a townhall meeting is that not many constituents would show up, which is tantamount to the ball player saying he doesn’t want to step up to the plate because he knows he’s going to strike out anyway. But it’s true. If a council member doesn’t put some effort into making the meeting a success, it might not be one. And, at first, perhaps only a dozen folks might show up to the meeting. But I’ve seen this happen many times before. Word starts getting around about how valuable these meetings are and then two dozen show up at the next one because "it’s the place to be." Then four dozen come to the one after that and before you know it, you have SRO crowds. Not only that, two council members could jointly co-sponsor one or more such meetings and, with each working their own constituency, attract a more significant crowd than by going it alone. So, yes, it does take effort to make these things work, but "effort" seems to be a dirty word at council chambers.

The second thing I said I would get back around to is the way the council agenda is arranged and, for once, the council has almost done a better job of arranging the agenda for this Tuesday’s meeting than at any time I can remember. My question is whether this might be just a one-off success tied to the proposed annexations.

Like I said earlier, the meeting on the 28^th is for the second public hearings on the proposed annexations, and, if you’re wondering when the first of those public hearings are supposed to come along, the answer to that is they are on Tuesday’s agenda which correctly groups them all together under the heading of "Public Hearing" (to be grammatically correct, it should be plural "Hearings," but, hey, this is a step in the right direction here.) There will, of course, be one public hearing for each of the four proposed annexations and, like I said, I don’t expect them to attract that many speakers because it’s not going to directly affect that many people. I expect Lila Knight to speak at least one of the hearings to once again say the city needs an Annexation Plan which, in the case of these annexations, is not true because, as Section 43.052 (h)(1) of the Local Texas Government Code clearly states an Annexation Plan is not required if the area to be annexed "contains fewer than 100 separate tracts of land on which one or more residential dwellings are located on each tract." That means these four areas are definitely exempt from needing an Annexation Plan.

So it’s not that the public hearings will draw any meaningful contributions, it’s simply the fact they are categorized as such on the council’s agenda. But, wait. As I wrote above "the council has almost done a better job of arranging the agenda." It seems that even though there is a section on the agenda devoted to "Public Hearing" (sic), there is a rogue public hearing appearing all by its lonesome as Item 11 on the agenda. Why isn’t this item included with the other public hearings? Someone from the city will make the excuse that Item 11 has to do with a proposed natural gas franchise and not an annexation, but that’s exactly what that will be — an excuse, not a valid reason.

All future agendas should have all the public hearings grouped together and appearing on the agenda immediate following the Consent Agenda items, if there is a Consent Agenda, or, as the annexation ones are on Tuesday’s agenda, immediately following the Citizens Comments period. In that way, those citizens coming to council to speak at one of the public hearings (1) will know generally where on the agenda the hearings will appear at every meeting without having to actually review the agenda and (2), and even more importantly, those citizens wishing to speak won’t have to sit through a lot of junk waiting around for the public hearing during which they wish to speak. Will the council take this sensible step? Who knows. The fact that these council members refuse to keep their constituents informed about the most important function the council must perform — reviewing and approving a budget each year — indicates they only pay lip service to the concept of caring for their constituents.

A couple of other items worth noting on Tuesday’s council agenda:

• It appears work is finally about to commence on the North Burleson Road bond project. Items 8-10 all involve work on or around North Burleson Road. The biggie, Item 8, is the authorization of $6.9 million for the construction of a new 42-foot-wide roadway, reconstruction and widening of North Burleson Street, water line relocations, wastewater line relocations, structure improvements, storm drain improvements, grading, base, pavement, curb and gutter, pedestrian improvements, illumination, construction of a new 8-inch wastewater line and 12-inch water line, and signing and markings for approximately 1.47 mile of roadway. Item 9 authorizes the spending of $613,244.73 for the construction of a new 42-foot-wide roadway, structure improvements, storm drain improvements, grading, base, pavement, curb and gutter, pedestrian improvements, signing and markings for approximately 800 feet of roadway extending Marketplace from Burleson to the I-35 frontage road. Item 10 authorizes the expenditure of an additional $73,344 for "construction administration, review, analysis, correction of contractor supplied material specifications, and revisions to plans during construction for N. Burleson Street and Marketplace Extension."
• The city is taking one more step in making toward making the roller hockey pavilion a reality with the first reading of an ordinance authorizing City Manager Scott Sellers to negotiate and enter into a professional services agreement for the design of the cement pavilion; authorizing the use of a Buy Board contractor to construct the cement hockey pavilion; and authorizing and directing Sellers to negotiate and bring back for city council an agreement with a Buy Board contractor for the construction of the pavilion. "As planning of this community project is getting underway, having the engineering firm and the contractor involved from the very beginning will save the city time and money," according to the agenda. "This process meets (the) state's and city's purchase policies for competitive bids. For a unique project involving many volunteers, in-kind donations and several different construction-industry participants, this is a preferred method to deliver a quality project."

Council’s agenda: From soup to nuts

I find it difficult not to think in culinary terms when pondering Tuesday’s City Council agenda with the appetizer being those imaginary phantom trails that are supposed to connect Kyle to neighboring cities but really don’t, the main courses offering annexations and short-term rental studies with a desert being what appears to be another look at a controversial zoning decision but we won’t know for sure because that dish will be served in private.

To add a little more intrigue, there have been some additions and deletions since the agenda was first posted at the end of business Thursday.

In April 2016, the City Council approved annexing close to 10,000 acres located along what was then the southern and western edges of the city limits. However, in somewhat of a convoluted deal, the owners of 15 properties included in the annexed area signed development agreements that exempted them from having to pay city taxes (and also kept them off voter rolls for city elections) as long as those properties were not altered in any fashion. Their moral argument was that they had purchased these properties so they could enjoy "the idyllic rustic, rural lifestyle far from the madding crowds of urbanization" and didn’t want any politicians forcing them to do otherwise. Of course, there was also the benefit of receiving all those city services without having to pay for them. Throughout all of this, however, was the lure of financial windfalls trumping the moral arguments.

Whether that lure is what convinced one of those 15 property owners, Tom and Mary Ayers, to sell their 17.19 acres located at 1001 South Sledge Street is unknown. What is known is that they did, in fact, sell that land to Thunder Horse Development LLC, which, according to its website, is "a real estate development company in the Austin, Texas Hill Country Area with a focus on developing residential lots to sell to home builders." In a letter to the city, C. Michael Bowen, Jr., the president of Thunder Horse, said the company purchased the property with the intention to develop single-family residential lots on those 17.19 acres. "The plan is to build a subdivision that offers lots such that a homebuilder can build homes in the $250-350K price range," Bowen wrote.

Since a collection of single-family residential lots is, of course, an alteration to "the idyllic rustic, rural lifestyle far from the madding crowds of urbanization," it triggers an automatic voluntary annexation which is the reason Item 14 is on Tuesday’s agenda and also the reason why it shouldn’t provoke any substantial discussion, even though a public hearing is attached to the item (which probably means a few diehards from the old guard will speak out against it). Actually, a public hearing on this annexation is not required, according to the Development Agreement and the Texas Local Government Code, but, as Planning and Community Development Director Howard J. Koontz wrote "the City of Kyle has found that it is in the best interest to exceed minimum requirements to allow the public an opportunity to voice any concerns or support relating to the annexation."

So while it is known that the sale of this land is what prompted Item 14, the reasons behind Item 18, "consider and possible action to direct (the) Planning and Zoning Commission to gather public input and conduct (a) short term rental study," are somewhat murkier. I reached out to Mayor Travis Mitchell, who placed the item on the agenda, and he said he would prefer to have the opportunity to discuss this with fellow council members before making his motivations public. However, Mitchell did direct me to a recent article in the Hays Free Press that surveyed what actions other cities in Hays County were taking to regulate short-term rentals. That story said Mayor Mitchell "after receiving a few resident complaints a few months ago regarding a neighbor’s short-term rental, the city started an information campaign alerting residents via their utility bills that they cannot operate short-term rentals within the city limits. Mitchell said the city crafts residential ordinances around residential living and that a conversation regarding regulating short-term rentals has not happened yet because city officials have not seen a demand for it yet. ‘It’s not explicitly prohibited but I personally think it’s a gray area,’ Mitchell said," according to the article. I’m guessing now Mitchell considers the idea has shifted through one or more of the 50 shades of gray.

Personally, I never thought of Kyle as that much of a tourist destination, but I was surprised to the level of being somewhat shocked yesterday when I went on Airbnb’s website and found far more listings for short-term rentals in Kyle than I anticipated. So it would appear that some form of study on this subject is warranted and P&Z seems as capable of conducting it and making some recommendations to council as anyone. (Full disclosure: for those who are unaware of this fact, I am a member of the Planning & Zoning Commission.)

What is labeled as a "presentation by the Emerald Crown Trail Work Group on a proposed trail connecting Buda, Kyle and San Marcos to the Violet Crown Trail in Austin to the Purgatory Trail in southern Hays County" was supposed to take place last month, but a winter storm forced its postponement. The key word in the above description is "proposed" because right now this is nothing more than pipe dream conceived by some well-meaning environmentalists and executed by geography students from Texas State much to the shock and surprise of property owners who had absolutely no clue that these folks planned to possibly put a trail through their land until they saw the maps. And, if you look at the maps, it’s easy to see immediately that the proposed trail routes do seem to connect Austin to San Marcos. But they are all located significantly north and west of Kyle. For the life of me, I can’t see any reason why the city would want to devote much energy, let alone financial assistance, to this endeavor when there is a dire need for a heavy investment in a hike/bike trail infrastructure right here in the city.

All this reminds me of a plan that was afoot when I first relocated here nearly four years ago and that was this foolish idea, I think it was called Lone Star Rail, to develop a commuter heavy rail mass transit system on the Southern Pacific rail line, compelling SP to shift its line to the eastern side of I-35. Fortunately, that plan died. However, a far less expensive and far more useful proposition would be to create a regional group that could purchase that rail line between San Antonio and a point north of Austin and convert it into a hike/bike trail that could serve as a spine for municipal hike/bike trails in local communities along the trail. Now, that would be something.

But I digress. Two — count ‘em, two — executive sessions are planned for Tuesday’s meeting. The first, scheduled to take place immediately after the opening citizen comments period, could actually produce the revelation of what law firm could be representing the city’s legal matters. The traditional executive session — the one near the end of the meeting — includes the tantalizing mention of "pending or contemplated litigation or to seek the advice of the city attorney" on the subject of "Windy Hill Zoning." Of course, anything to do with executive sessions are, by definition, hush-hush but I can’t help but speculate this involves that controversial decision the council made to deny a multi-family zoning request on Windy Hill. When it first came up for discussion last Dec. 5, it appeared the council was set to oppose it until City Attorney Frank Garza held a special executive session with council members after which they voted 6-1 to approve it. Then, during the council’s Jan. 3 meeting, Garza reversed his opinion on whether the council had the legal liberty to oppose the zoning and the council voted unanimously to deny the request. Garza admitted to me at the time, however, no case law existed to support his argument. So I can’t help but wonder whether some new information has come to light that might have caused another interpretation of the Texas Local Government Code on the matter, hence the item included in Tuesday’s second executive session.

What’s missing from either executive session is any mention of the "Jesse Espinoza Lawsuit" that was supposed to be part of the council’s Jan. 11 executive session. However, Garza told me that item wasn’t discussed at that time because the city had not received a copy of the lawsuit in which Espinoza claims his indefinite suspension from the Kyle Police Department was the result of racial discrimination. I can’t help but wonder whether the fact that no mention of this lawsuit is made on this agenda means the city still hasn’t received notice of the legal action or possibly whether it’s because the lawsuit has been withdrawn or dismissed. I’m not an attorney. I haven’t even played one on television. But it was an interim police chief who dismissed Espinoza, the only dismissal from the Kyle police force handed down by this person and I can’t see how a pattern of discrimination can be determined by just one action. But, like I said, I’m no attorney.

The late addition to this week’s agenda involves an item that would allow a fifth ex-officio (i.e., non-voting) member on the city’s Economic Development Board, a position that would be reserved for a representative from the Hays school district. The deletion was a portion of the city manager’s report dealing with an update on the provisions of a loan agreement the council approved to RSI, Inc., in September 2016, "We neglected to go over the information we received with Hays County (as they are part of the agreement) and would like to do this prior to any public updates," City Manager Scott Sellers graciously volunteered to me yesterday. I have been looking forward to this update because the agreement included the expectations that RSI would hire seven new employees in 2017 and it would be interesting to learn if those expectations had been met or possibly even exceeded.

Council OKs budget, lower tax rate, pre-annexation template but tables loan-for-jobs deal

The City Council unanimously approved an $80 million budget for FY 2016-17 tonight, lowered the property tax rate one cent to $.5748 per $100 property valuation, unanimously passed a template for agreements that will be used whenever a property owner outside the city limits requests utilities from the city, but tabled a plan to offer RSI, Inc., an interest-free economic development loan in return for hiring new employees.

No reason was given during the council meeting for tabling the RSI agreement, an action the council took at the behest of City Manager Scott Sellers. After the meeting I asked Sellers why he made the request and he replied: "I think we just needed a little more time to get everyone comfortable with it." When I asked "Who is not comfortable with it," he just gave me a "C’mon, I can’t tell you that" smile, but added "You’ll know soon enough."

It was really the only unexpected event of the entire 28-minute meeting.

The blank spaces on the agreement template will be filled in and signed by all parties whenever a property owner outside the city limits wants the city to provide utilities to that owner. The agreement basically says that, in return for providing the utilities, whenever the city blows the whistle that property will be annexed into the city limits.

Sellers told the council the agreement applies to "utilities extended within the city’s CCN, meaning our service territory for water/wastewater, another neighboring jurisdiction’s CCN, a neighboring jurisdiction’s ETJ or in their corporate municipal limits. But what this agreement stipulates is any time those services are extended to a property owner they would need to sign one of these pre-annexation agreements which basically states they would dis-annex from whatever territory they are in and, in exchange, annex into either the city of Kyle’s corporate jurisdiction or sign an agreement that says at the time the city of Kyle desires or has the ability to annex that area that it will be a voluntary annexation."

Sellers said the city has extended utilities to some of these areas in the past and when the city tried to annex them, "there are times when we are fought for that annexation. Yet they are taking advantage of that city service we have already provided to them.

"So this basically states," Sellers said, "if you’re going to receive city services that you will annex in at the time that annexation is called upon." He said that annexation might not take place until three to five years after the utilities are provided, "but at the time that annexation is the logical next step for the city, that property owner will annex into the city of Kyle."

Mayor Todd Webster said the template came about largely because of recent annexation efforts.

"We had property owners receiving utilities who didn’t want to be annexed," the mayor said. "They said they already received all the benefits of being within the city without having to pay city taxes, so why should they be annexed? I could see from where they were coming from why they would feel that way. I think this policy will resolve a lot of future disagreements. And it wouldn’t apply to anyone unless they made the choice to ask us for utilities."

As predicted, the vote on the final reading of the proposed budget was 6-1 with council member Daphne Tenorio casting the lone vote in opposition, presumably for the same reasons she gave for opposing it on first reading last Wednesday. The vote on the lower tax rate was unanimous.

In other action tonight, the council:

• Officially welcomed the city’s new recreation division manager, Jason Miller, who comes to the city after having worked for the city of New Braunfels, as well as Sarah Watson, who will become the city’s new programs and events specialist. Watson is also the staff liaison with Kyle Area Youth Advisory Council (KAYAC) and she told me after the meeting she plans on retaining that liaison position in addition to her new responsibilities.
• Unanimously approved the appointments of seven high school students — Jude McClaren, Skyler Gold, Mia Padron, Dharma Heaney, Raymond "RJ" Navarro, Anna Holsonbake and Samantha Martinez — to KAYAC.
• Unanimously approved Ryan Browning, council member Travis Mitchell’s nominee, to the Ethics Commission.

Revised annexation numbers

If the annexations ordinances are approved in their second readings April 19 — and there’s no reason to doubt that they won’t be in spite of some last-ditch opposition to one of them — Kyle will expand by 8,681.8 acres (13.565 square miles) and its population will increase by 173 persons, according to figures provided today by the City.

The overwhelming percentage of that acreage —12.739 square miles of it — is that portion to be annexed voluntarily. However, that large section will, at present, only add 10 to the City’s population.

According to the City’s calculations, the involuntary annexations consists of four different parts:

1. The properties between I-H 35 and South Old Stagecoach Road on the north side of Opal Lane up to the current City limits (179.8 acres).
2. The two undeveloped properties between Opal Lane and Roland Lane immediately adjacent to I-H 35 (171.8 acres).
3. The property between Goforth Road and Bebee Road on the west side of Goforth Road over to the current City limits (173.2 acres).
4. Right-of-way for Hitching Post Drive, Parke Place and Scott Street (4 acres).

"The populations added do not change the numbers in the districts enough to redraw any voting district boundaries," the City said. "When the Blanco River Ranch area starts to develop, the district boundaries will need to be revised."

The annexation listed in No. 3 above, with a population of 77 individuals, will be located in City Council District 6. The others will be in District 2.

And then there were six

(Updated to include an email council member Tenorio sent to City Manager Sellers questioning the legality of the vote on the annexation resolution.)

Question: What’s the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Answer: Something citizens of Kyle will not receive from their city officials.

The hot button item on last night’s City Council agenda was a proposal to schedule a couple of public hearings on the subject of annexing land from the city’s extra-territorial jurisdiction into the city. The majority of citizens who made the trip to City Hall to address the council on the subject during the Citizen Comments section of the agenda spoke against the annexation. Why? I dunno. None of them spoke with absolutely clarity why they were for or against the idea, but that did not keep them from taking sides on the issue and most were on the side of "no."

How did these folks know they were living on land the city was considering annexing? After all, the city was not required, at this stage of the proceedings, to notify residents living in the affected areas. The answer is the city provided, as part of the council’s agenda, a map specifically highlighting the five areas being considered.

The actual item to be voted on was the last one on the agenda and the council considered it following an hour and 42-minute executive session or a little over two hours and 45 minutes after the meeting began. By that time, the chamber was largely deserted. Most of those who spoke during the Citizens Comments period had already left. After Mayor Todd Webster placed the item before the council fior its consideration and was awaiting a motion to approve it, after the council was told they were provided with a map illustrating the areas to be annexed, City Manager Scott Sellers jumped up with an astounding "Oh, by the way" moment:


There is a sixth piece of land the city didn’t tell the public about, located on the east side of I-35, near the intersection of Goforth and Cotton Gin roads, that’s also being considered for annexation.
Forgetting to include this fact with the agenda is a serious screw-up on the part of the city. In fact, it’s so serious that someone with deep pockets and a few friends in high places who opposes the annexation could easily file a lawsuit that would, at the very least, keep the proposed annexation bottled up in the courts for years. Heck, our governor and attorney general have filed lawsuits with far less merit. Sellers produced a "corrected" map with the additional land illustrated on it and gave it to the council moments before it voted on the proposed resolution, but city made absolutely no attempt to make this map readily available to the public or members of the media.

Not only that, but during the executive session, Chief of Staff Jerry Hendrix placed a copy of the map included with the agenda on the chamber’s large screen and told those few people still remaining in no uncertain terms that this map illustrated the lands to be annexed. He never mentioned the fact that there was a sixth piece of land being proposed for annexation that was not included on the map. I’m not accusing Hendrix of deliberately withholding information. I’m thinking he was left out of the loop as well. He didn’t know. Regardless, what he told the citizens gathered in the chamber was not the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. And that’s a problem. A potentially serious problem.

And there’s also the problem that the legend that comes with the map only lists the five areas depicted on the map. Nowhere does it say, for example, "Area 6 (not pictured) ..."

Now the City Council could have corrected this massive screw up by simply tabling the motion for two weeks until an accurate map with all the proposed land to be annexed could be made public as part of the Feb. 2 agenda. But hoping the Kyle City Council will ever do the right thing is like hoping my golden retriever will not chase that rabbit she just spotted in the underbrush. Ain’t gonna happen. Never has. I doubt it ever will.

Two council members — Diane Hervol and Daphne Tenorio — voted against the resolution. But Tenorio told me after the meeting she voted "nay" not to correct the city’s blunder but because "I don’t think the city was transparent enough in talking to citizens affected by this. I really would have liked to vote ‘yes,’ but the specific areas I’m not comfortable with right now." She said she was concerned because a number of people living in some of the areas opposed the annexation. "If somebody wants to be annexed, I’m completely OK with that. My concern is you’re trying to annex people without talking to them. I also don’t think we can afford to take on this additional area. Until we can afford to maintain our current infrastructure I have a problem adding additional burdens on our taxpayers."

(Updated information)
The morning after the council meeting, however, Tenorio sent the following email to Sellers:

"I am really concerned about last night’s resolution to extend the City of Kyle’s boundaries thru annexation. The map that was posted online last Friday was not the map that was approved. I have two concerns. First, while not purposely done, we did not give our citizens or our council the full 72 hours to review. The map that we voted on was not available to them or to me until right before the vote. Secondly, I am concerned that we are giving ammunition to the developers to litigate the annexation because we didn’t properly disclose."

That email was sent close to six hours prior to the original posting of this article. So there’s that.

(Resuming original article)
By the time I had a chance to talk to Hervol, she had already left the chamber.

In the only other significant action last night, the council laid all the necessary groundwork for a May election in which a very small handful of Kyle’s registered voters will turn out to cast ballots in two City Council races and for or against revisions in the city’s charter.

Charter changes, annexations top council agenda items

The City Council will consider (and almost certainly ultimately pass) an ordinance Tuesday establishing an election May 7 to vote on proposed changes to the city’s charter and take the first steps in annexing five areas of land currently in its extra-territorial jurisdiction, including the 2,253-acre Blanco River Ranch, the site of a planned high-end subdivision.

If all goes as currently planned, the May 7 ballot will contain, along with a pair of council elections, these 11 proposed changes to the charter:

1. Shall Sections 4.03 (g) (o) (p), 5.11 of the City Charter be amended to require submission to the qualified voters of the City to eliminate provisions which have become inoperative because they have been superseded by state law; replace obsolete references; update terminology to current legal usage, and to eliminate obsolete transitional provisions?

2. Shall Sections 3.05 of the City Charter be amended to require submission to the qualified voters of the City to add causes to remove any elected officer to also include habitual substance abuse and conviction of a misdemeanor involving a crime of moral turpitude which are crimes involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, deliberate violence, or that reflect adversely on an elected official’s honesty, trustworthiness?

3. Shall sections 4.01 and 4.03 of the City Charter be amended to authorize the City Council to recommend and approve appointments to all City Boards and Commissions?

4. Shall section 4.03 (a) of the City Charter be amended to eliminate the requirement of Council confirmation on the dismissal of the Director of Finance?

5. Shall section 4.05 of the City Charter be amended to clarify that neither the Mayor or (sic) Council shall instruct the City Manager or any city employee to hire or terminate any city employee and require the mayor and council to go through the City Manager for administrative and management functions of the City?

6. Shall sections 5.02 of the City Charter be amended to move the City’s general election date for the Mayor and Councilmembers from May to November and approve a transitional provision extending terms in May 2017 and May 2018 to November 2017 and 2018?

7. Shall section 7.10 of the City Charter be amended to clarify that the City Attorney shall report to the City Manager but remain appointed by the Mayor and City Council?

8. Shall section 8.09 of the City Charter be amended to require two authorized signatures, one must be either the City Manager or Finance Director, for checks, vouchers, warrants or withdrawal of funds from city depositories?

9. Shall section 8.11 (e) of the City Charter be added so that any issuance of debt not have a repayment period greater than the life of the asset(s) being funded?

10. Shall section 8.11 (f) of the City Charter be added so that any issuance of debt or instrument of obligation exceeding 5% of the annual assessed valuation of the city shall only be issued with a binding referendum being placed on the ballot and such expenditure approved by the voters?

11. Shall section 13.10 of the City Charter be added so that all meetings, hearings and workshops of the Council, any Board, Commission or Committee of the City shall comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act and shall provide a time for public comment?

It remains to be seen if any of these proposals will engender any serious debate or controversy, although it stands to reason that any candidate running on the ballot will be asked where he or she stands on them.

The council will also vote whether to schedule public hearings March 1 and again March 15 on a proposal to annex between one to five areas of land into the city, including the Blanco River Ranch, which is almost twice as large as the other four areas combined and which, if developed as planned, would place far more stress on the city’s infrastructure than the proposed 1-acre town-home development that was rejected by the council last week because it placed too much stress on the city’s infrastructure.

The other four areas being considered for annexation border South Stagecoach Road, from the current city limits down to Yarrington Road. The other four are labeled (1) the Davenport/Bullock/Old Town area, 590 acres; (2) Driskel, North Roland Lane area, 325 acres; (3) Graef Ranch area, 169 acres; and (4) Scott Street area, 60 acres.

As usual, a citizens comment section is scheduled at the beginning of Tuesday's 7 p.m. meeting, but none of the items on the agenda include a public hearing. The complete agenda can be found here.

Fogley fumbles recusal attempt

It is a given that the Kyle City Council does not follow Robert’s Rules of Order or any other accepted parliamentary procedures, but there are certain ethical guidelines that are so tantamount to good government, they must be obeyed. Every single person who serves on a city council or a city board/commission/committee in Kyle should know how to recuse themselves so as to avoid any hint of conflict of interest.

Now different municipalities have different procedures for initiating the recusal process. For the sake of example, let’s use a member of a city council as our subject here because the situation I’m talking about involved a neophyte city council member, Damon Fogley, at last Tuesday’s city council meeting. Normally what happens in situations like this is council members will prepare somewhat before they come to council meetings. They will have at least carefully read the council’s agenda and, thus, will be aware of any item which may pose a conflict of interest before the meeting even starts. I don’t know the exact procedure here in Kyle, but in the civilized world of municipal government, a council person wishing to be recused because a particular agenda item may pose a potential conflict will file a signed affidavit noting that possible conflict with the city secretary, who will then notify the council’s presiding officer just prior to the commencement of that meeting.

The key here is "preparation," a council member actually studying the agenda somewhat a day or two, or even an hour or two, prior to the start of the council meeting. I am not sure that every member of the Kyle City Council takes any time preparing for these meetings.

However it’s handled, there are certain rules that apply in all situations of recusal. The presiding officer must know of a council person’s recusal intent before the agenda item comes up for discussion. And the council member who has been recused must physically leave the chamber where the item is being discussed and voted upon. Fogley did neither Tuesday.

The item in question was a rezoning issue to allow a convenience store/gas station type use on a 1.75 acres that was zoned single family residential. at 2050 E. RR 150. Instead of saying anything ahead of time, Fogley sat through the entire discussion of the item and, just as the vote was about to be taken, asked to be recused. But then, instead of getting up and leaving the chamber as is required in any recusal motion, even one as illegal as Fogley’s was, he just sat there like the Say-No-Evil monkey and simply didn’t cast a vote. Not voting or abstaining from voting on an item is not the same thing as a recusal. The item passed 5-0.

Now I’m not going to put the entire blame for this foolishness on Fogley. Just as much responsibility for this inexcusable behavior needs to be shared with city staff. And there is a very simple way to guard against having our city leaders acting like idiots in the future. Between the time a person is elected for the first time to the city council and that person is sworn in, the staff, led the city attorney, must conduct some form of orientation program for these individuals so that they are aware of the basic rules of Robert’s as well as the reasons to recuse oneself and the proper procedure for a recusal. Staff should conduct the same program for all new members to city boards and commissions as well. If handled correctly, such an orientation class could be held in under an hour.

In other action Tuesday night, the council:

• Seemed receptive the idea presented by an organization called Appa Aguilas to form a soccer program in Kyle, especially if that meant Appa Aguilas was going to relieve the city of the responsibility of maintaining Waterleaf Park.
• Reappointed Mike Wilson, Irene Melendez and Timothy Kay to the Planning & Zoning Commission and appointed former city council candidate Dex Ellison to the commission to replace retiring commissioner Dan Ryan.
• Denied a request to permit overhead electrical service along Bebee Road.
• Approved 5-1 (CM Diane Hervol cast the lone dissenting vote and CM Daphne Tenorio had an excused absence due to illness) a zoning request that will allow the construction of a pair of warehouses on Lehman Road near RR 150.
• Unanimously approved a zoning request to permit the construction 82 rental duplexes directly behind these warehouses.
• In one of the quickest annexation moves on record, the council voted 5-0 (CM Becky Selbera left the meeting without announcing why just prior to discussing this item) to annex the 135.78 acres where David Weekley Homes and Scott Felder Homes are planning a subdivision immediately west of Hometown Kyle. The entire discussion on this issue and the vote consumed less than two minutes of the council’s time. Moments later, the council allowed 2.681 acres of this property to be rezoned so it could be used for retail services right at the intersection of North Old Stagecoach and Cypress roads.
• Discussed the possibility of installing up to three stop signs in the Waterleaf subdivision in an attempt to slow drivers who are apparently racing through the streets of this area at speeds close to 40 miles an hour.
• Heard that, although construction has begun on the Marketplace-to-Burleson road project, the official groundbreaking ceremonies will take place Wednesday, Oct. 7, at 9:30 a.m.
• Was reminded that the council’s first meeting in October will be on the first Wednesday of the month, not the usual first Tuesday, because that Tuesday is National Night Out in Texas and Florida.
• Was informed by City Manager Scott Sellers that Stage 2 water restrictions were returning because (1) water consumption in Kyle was 33 percent greater this year than last and (2) the Barton Springs Pool of the Edwards Aquifer is "steadily dropping" and the San Antonio Pool of the Edwards is in Stage 2.