Ginger and I attended this morning’s dedication of the city’s much-ballyhooed new dog park at Steeplechase Park. It was a nice, well-attended affair hosted by Parks Director Kerry Urbanowicz, representing the city staff, and Mayor Pro Tem Shane Arabie, representing the city’s elected officials. Other city staff members I spotted included City Manager Scott Sellers, Chief of Staff Jerry Hendrix and, of course, Communications Specialist Kim Hilensenbeck. Other elected officials included council members Daphne Tenorio and Tracy Scheel, both of whom, like me, brought their beloved pets with them. (Tenorio, it should be noted, only brought her one non-rescue four-legged roommate along, leaving at least three other doggies back at the Tenorio homestead). In the official opening remarks, Arabie talked about how the dog park is another move by the city to improve the quality of life for its residents and provide the opportunity for neighbors to interact with each other.
The first official dogfight in the park began at 10:34 a.m.
The two dogs in question were separated almost immediately with seemingly no harm done. A lot of growling and barking, but no real attacking or biting. Kind of a microcosm of a typical Kyle City Council meeting, another one of which is scheduled for this Tuesday following a two-week break. That last council meeting on May 15 was incredibly brief, actually lasting less than an hour. We should be so lucky this time around. This week’s executive session looks like it could last longer than the entire last City Council meeting.
The agenda includes four items — count ‘em, four — involving the erection of no-parking signs along streets where students at the city’s two high schools park on residential streets. An overly long presentation on the Emerald Crown Trail Folly is also on the agenda. (I still escapes me why the city is so accommodating about a proposed path between Buda and San Marcos that will largely bypass Kyle while completely ignoring the concept of its own municipal trail network, but there you have it.) There’s also a suggestion to have the city’s code of ordinances include rules about exactly where in their backyards residents can place accessory structures and if the council wastes as much time haggling over this as the Planning & Zoning Commission did, discussion on this one item could also last longer than the entire May 15 meeting.
But the items that really piqued my interest ahead of Tuesday’s confab were two of the four being advanced by Mayor Travis Mitchell: one to bring back yet one more time the well-worn idea that Kyle should be a member of the Central Texas Clean Air Coalition and the second one being a change to the council rules to avoid the mess like the one the council created for itself a couple of months ago involving a controversial zoning decision.
In the almost four years now that this journal has been in existence the council has twice rejected the notion that the city should join the Clean Air Coalition. I am not firmly entrenched on either side of this issue but I lean toward not joining for a few reasons. The first, of course, is Groucho Marx’s philosophy of life as outlined in his resignation letter to the Friar’s Club (and repeated by Woody Allen in the great Annie Hall) that "I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member." The second is that the organization does not emphasize the one goal that will achieve its clean air objectives and that, of course, is reducing the number of fossil-fuel burning vehicles on the roads of Central Texas. The third is that there’s money involved in joining the coalition, that money comes from taxes we pay and I’ve never been convinced Kyle would receive an ample return on that investment. And since the last time a Kyle council rejected this idea, another reason has been added: the Trump administration, under the leadership of EPA Director Scott Pruitt, is doing everything it can to disembowel organizations like the Texas Clean Air Coalition in its unrelenting efforts to eliminate all regulations designed to keep our air and water hazard free.
However, according to Mitchell, that third reason I had — the one about a return on the taxpayers’ investment — may have a hole in it.
"The Clean Air Coalition is being brought back for two reasons," the mayor told me. "First, we have two new members on the council and those members have not weighed in on the matter. (They both replaced council members who cast dissenting votes.) Second, CAPCOG (Capital Area Council of Governments, of which the coalition is a part) recently demonstrated how participating in the Clean Air Coalition could be valuable to our residents by drafting a technical memo to help us better understand how near-road air pollution might affect a particular residence in Kyle. It was a concrete example of how participating in the group can be of service to our community, and as such I have decided to vote in support of joining."
So what exactly did this "technical memo" say that was so valuable?
"We had a resident express concern that road improvements near his business would create enough road-based air pollution to negatively affect his business," Mitchell said. "Rather than speculate, we asked for CAPCOG to analyze the air-quality impact of the proposed project. Utilizing science and manpower in part made available through the Clean Air Coalition, CAPCOG provided us this technical memo at no charge. The data was extremely helpful in our communication with the resident, and it also provided a clear understanding of how our projects may or may not impact the air quality of the community."
So did that mean CAPCOG’s study show the road improvements under consideration would not "create enough road-based air pollution to negatively affect his business"?
"Correct," the mayor replied.
The other item involving changing the rules of council includes one having to do with the deadline for submitting proposed agenda items and the second, and more interesting one, dealing with the procedure for bringing a defeated item back for reconsideration. If the rule changes are approved, the new deadline for council members to submit agenda items would be 3 p.m. on the Thursday immediately preceding the could meeting in question. (The previous deadline was 5 p.m. five business days before the meeting.) The second change provides an exception to what I call "the Diane Hervol rule" that stated if an item placed on the agenda by a council member failed to pass "that same item or one of substantially similar subject matter may not be placed back on the agenda for at least six months from the day of the vote." (I call it "the Diane Hervol rule" because the former council member whose name I invoked would routinely bring back meeting after meeting an item the council had already rejected until she wore enough of her colleagues down that they would decide to vote for it just to keep from having to deal with it at every meeting.) The interesting addition to this rule is one that concerns "matters that have not received four votes … either for or against…"
If you’ll recall the council back in February tried to vote on a zoning request for a proposed residential subdivision on Sledge Street that was opposed by those living in an already established subdivision on the other side of the street. Arabie was not present at this meeting and votes on two different zoning proposals ended in 3-3 deadlocks, thus effectively killing the subdivision. However, the item mysteriously re-appeared two weeks later and on March 5 one of those zoning requests ultimately passed by a 4-2 vote (on this occasion, council member Damon Fogley was absent). There was some question, especially from Tenorio, whether it was even permissible, according to the council’s established rules at that time, for such a reconsideration.
If the council approves the rule changes Tuesday, it will state that in those situations in which a proposal fails to receive four votes either way "Any member of council can request that the matter be placed on the agenda for reconsideration. The request may be made at the meeting at which the motion failed to pass, or the request may be made in writing and submitted to the city manager and the city secretary by 3 p.m. on the Thursday before the next regular City Council meeting following the meeting at which the matter failed to receive four votes."
Mitchell is insisting that the Sledge Street reconsideration kerfuffle has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this proposed rule change (Sure, Fine. Whatever.), but I’ll leave that debate to others.
"The proposed changes to the Rules of Council are to clarify a policy that we loosely followed but was never spelled out by ordinance." according to Mitchell. "The ‘motion to renew,’ … exercised in the zoning matter you referenced, was allowed under our current policy. The proposal before council on Tuesday will actually create a new rule slightly different than Roberts Rules. It allows for any member of the council to bring back an item at the following meeting if the item failed on less than four votes. To me, this is a more democratic approach.
"I can give you an example," the mayor continued. "The way our rules currently read, let's say council has a meeting in which for whatever reason only four council members can attend. In that scenario, a single dissenting vote would effectively kill the item unless the person who dissented agreed to bring it back. I don't think that is the best approach. If an item fails but on a vote like 3-1 or 3-3, any member of council should have the right to reconsider the vote at the following meeting."
There might be some interesting debate on these issues but, like that incident at 10:34 this morning at the just-opened dog park, I’m betting the barking will be there but the biting won’t.
The Kyle Report
Showing posts with label Central Texas Clean Air Coalition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Central Texas Clean Air Coalition. Show all posts
Saturday, June 2, 2018
Saturday, August 13, 2016
Clean Air Coalition and the legacy of P.T. Barnum
If you heard the words "There’s a sucker born every minute," the first person you’d probably think of is P.T. Barnum, the American showman of the last half of the 19th century known for his celebrated hoaxes and as the founder of the Barnum & Bailey Circus.
Which is a shame, because there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Barnum ever uttered those words. In fact, according to Barnum biographer Arthur H. Saxon "There's no contemporary account of it, or even any suggestion that the word 'sucker' was used in the derogatory sense in his day. Barnum was just not the type to disparage his patrons."
The first account I came across of anyone using this term was when I read Herbert Asbury’s book Gem of the Prairie: Underworld. In the book Asbury describes a time in the late 1860s when saloon/gambling house proprietor and Chicago politician Michael Cassius McDonald was equipping his latest gambling establishment, known simply as "The Store," and his partner, Harry Lawrence, expressed concern about all the roulette tables McDonald was putting in the place. Lawrence felt there might not be enough gamblers willing to come to The Store to play at all them. According to Asbury, McDonald told Lawrence "Don't worry about that, there's a sucker born every minute."
What’s important, I guess, is the veracity of the statement, not especially who it is attributed to.
I was reminded of that — the statement’s veracity — when I looked over Wednesday’s City Council Agenda and noticed that council member Travis Mitchell was bringing back the idea of the city joining CAPCOG’s Clean Air Coalition, a move that was defeated at the last council session Aug. 2.
Hey, I have absolutely nothing against the Clean Air Coalition but to anyone who thinks, for even one second, that group will accomplish one single thing to significantly improve air quality in the area, here’s my response:
"Don't worry about that, there's a sucker born every minute."
The original push for joining the Clean Air Coalition came from those citizens concerned about the possibility of a giant truck stop being located at I-35 and Yarrington Road, as though the coalition could actually do anything to prevent the construction of that facility. But I’m guessing the reasoning behind the push was if the city was a member of the coalition and the coalition went on record as saying such a truck stop would have had a detrimental effect on air quality in that area (which the coalition wouldn’t have) it would make it more difficult for the city, as a member of the coalition, to push for the truck stop construction.
Hey,as crazy as that sounds, there are those whose minds actually work that way.
There is only one way any local entity or coalition of local entities can significantly reduce vehicular air pollution and that is to significantly reduce the number of vehicles causing that pollution from the roadways. And the Clean Air Coalition is not focusing any of its energies into reducing the number of vehicles on our region’s roads. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch.
Not only that, but mandates enacted by the EPA have done more than any local coalition could envision accomplishing, by forcing automobile manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles for our nation’s highways. EPA mandates alone resulted in the Dallas-Fort Worth area being removed recently from non-attainment status.
Is there more that could be done? Certainly, but Kyle wouldn’t have to join the Clean Air Coalition to accomplish them. For example, if it was serious about air quality, the city would put forth a policy requiring its entire motorized fleet to be composed of CNG vehicles. It could mandate that any city owned/operated facility currently under consideration be LEEDs certified and it would mandate LEEDs certification standards on all developments within the city’s jurisdiction.
However, is there a real downside to joining the coalition? Not really, as long as no city funds are allocated for membership, no city funds are ever earmarked for the coalition for any purpose and no one expects the coalition to help improve air quality in Kyle.
On the other side of that coin, Is there any upside to joining the coalition? Yes, it’s good PR. It puts the city on record as being on the politically correct side of air quality debate. It’s like one of those resolutions the council routinely passes honoring one or more "fallen heroes." They accomplish nothing in terms of altering the course of human events, but it gives council members an opportunity to feel really good about themselves. It puts them on record as being on the side of "the good guys."
Which is a shame, because there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Barnum ever uttered those words. In fact, according to Barnum biographer Arthur H. Saxon "There's no contemporary account of it, or even any suggestion that the word 'sucker' was used in the derogatory sense in his day. Barnum was just not the type to disparage his patrons."
The first account I came across of anyone using this term was when I read Herbert Asbury’s book Gem of the Prairie: Underworld. In the book Asbury describes a time in the late 1860s when saloon/gambling house proprietor and Chicago politician Michael Cassius McDonald was equipping his latest gambling establishment, known simply as "The Store," and his partner, Harry Lawrence, expressed concern about all the roulette tables McDonald was putting in the place. Lawrence felt there might not be enough gamblers willing to come to The Store to play at all them. According to Asbury, McDonald told Lawrence "Don't worry about that, there's a sucker born every minute."
What’s important, I guess, is the veracity of the statement, not especially who it is attributed to.
I was reminded of that — the statement’s veracity — when I looked over Wednesday’s City Council Agenda and noticed that council member Travis Mitchell was bringing back the idea of the city joining CAPCOG’s Clean Air Coalition, a move that was defeated at the last council session Aug. 2.
Hey, I have absolutely nothing against the Clean Air Coalition but to anyone who thinks, for even one second, that group will accomplish one single thing to significantly improve air quality in the area, here’s my response:
"Don't worry about that, there's a sucker born every minute."
The original push for joining the Clean Air Coalition came from those citizens concerned about the possibility of a giant truck stop being located at I-35 and Yarrington Road, as though the coalition could actually do anything to prevent the construction of that facility. But I’m guessing the reasoning behind the push was if the city was a member of the coalition and the coalition went on record as saying such a truck stop would have had a detrimental effect on air quality in that area (which the coalition wouldn’t have) it would make it more difficult for the city, as a member of the coalition, to push for the truck stop construction.
Hey,as crazy as that sounds, there are those whose minds actually work that way.
There is only one way any local entity or coalition of local entities can significantly reduce vehicular air pollution and that is to significantly reduce the number of vehicles causing that pollution from the roadways. And the Clean Air Coalition is not focusing any of its energies into reducing the number of vehicles on our region’s roads. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch.
Not only that, but mandates enacted by the EPA have done more than any local coalition could envision accomplishing, by forcing automobile manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles for our nation’s highways. EPA mandates alone resulted in the Dallas-Fort Worth area being removed recently from non-attainment status.
Is there more that could be done? Certainly, but Kyle wouldn’t have to join the Clean Air Coalition to accomplish them. For example, if it was serious about air quality, the city would put forth a policy requiring its entire motorized fleet to be composed of CNG vehicles. It could mandate that any city owned/operated facility currently under consideration be LEEDs certified and it would mandate LEEDs certification standards on all developments within the city’s jurisdiction.
However, is there a real downside to joining the coalition? Not really, as long as no city funds are allocated for membership, no city funds are ever earmarked for the coalition for any purpose and no one expects the coalition to help improve air quality in Kyle.
On the other side of that coin, Is there any upside to joining the coalition? Yes, it’s good PR. It puts the city on record as being on the politically correct side of air quality debate. It’s like one of those resolutions the council routinely passes honoring one or more "fallen heroes." They accomplish nothing in terms of altering the course of human events, but it gives council members an opportunity to feel really good about themselves. It puts them on record as being on the side of "the good guys."
Friday, August 5, 2016
Economic Development Board’s rigged recommendation on joining Clean Air Coalition
The only "outside experts" the city’s Economic Development Board consulted when considering the impact that joining the Cleaning Air Coalition would have on attracting new business to Kyle were representatives of the coalitions’s umbrella agency.
That’s exactly like asking the fox for recommendations on how to build the henhouse.
The Central Texas Clean Air Coalition is part of the Capital Area Council of Governments (CAPCOG) and, according to the official minutes of the Economic Development Board’s May 10 meeting at which this subject was discussed, the only two persons to address the board on the subject were Andrew Hoakzema, CAPCOG’s air quality control manager and the head cheerleader of the Clean Air Coalition, and Chris Schrenck, CAPCOG’s director of planning and economic development, neither of whom was going to be objective on the issue.
Immediately after their presentations, according to the minutes, board member Harish Malkani moved the Economic Development Committee recommend to the City Council that the city join the Clean Air Coalition, not as a supporting member, as the majority of the council wished, but a full-fledged general member. That motion was seconded by Tony Spano and approved unanimously (board members Tessa Schmidtzinsky and Don Tracy did not attend the meeting).
The charge from the city council to the Economic Development Board was clear: Determine whether joining the Clean Air Coalition would have a detrimental effect on attracting new business to Kyle. Does anyone think that simply talking to representatives of the Clean Air Coalition will provide the objective, thorough analysis that was requested by the City Council? Give me a break!
It seems to me a more thorough examination on this subject could have been presented by inviting representatives and seeking testimony from Austin area businesses who actually make relocation/expansion decisions or perhaps educators from the business schools at either UT/Austin or Texas State who may have actually studied this subject.
But, sadly, that was not the case. The Economic Development Board’s idea of an objective look on whether to join the Clean Air Coalition is to listen only to the chief proponents of the Clean Air Coalition.
That makes the board’s recommendation absolutely worthless.
That’s exactly like asking the fox for recommendations on how to build the henhouse.
The Central Texas Clean Air Coalition is part of the Capital Area Council of Governments (CAPCOG) and, according to the official minutes of the Economic Development Board’s May 10 meeting at which this subject was discussed, the only two persons to address the board on the subject were Andrew Hoakzema, CAPCOG’s air quality control manager and the head cheerleader of the Clean Air Coalition, and Chris Schrenck, CAPCOG’s director of planning and economic development, neither of whom was going to be objective on the issue.
Immediately after their presentations, according to the minutes, board member Harish Malkani moved the Economic Development Committee recommend to the City Council that the city join the Clean Air Coalition, not as a supporting member, as the majority of the council wished, but a full-fledged general member. That motion was seconded by Tony Spano and approved unanimously (board members Tessa Schmidtzinsky and Don Tracy did not attend the meeting).
The charge from the city council to the Economic Development Board was clear: Determine whether joining the Clean Air Coalition would have a detrimental effect on attracting new business to Kyle. Does anyone think that simply talking to representatives of the Clean Air Coalition will provide the objective, thorough analysis that was requested by the City Council? Give me a break!
It seems to me a more thorough examination on this subject could have been presented by inviting representatives and seeking testimony from Austin area businesses who actually make relocation/expansion decisions or perhaps educators from the business schools at either UT/Austin or Texas State who may have actually studied this subject.
But, sadly, that was not the case. The Economic Development Board’s idea of an objective look on whether to join the Clean Air Coalition is to listen only to the chief proponents of the Clean Air Coalition.
That makes the board’s recommendation absolutely worthless.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Council eliminates politics from stop sign decisions; silences (at least temporarily) alarm ordinance
The City Council decided last night decisions on where to place traffic control devices in Kyle should be based on science and engineering, not politics, and effectively removed themselves as the "court of last resort" for those seeking unwarranted stop signs in the community.
The council also voted to table an ordinance involving alarm registration/false alarms and, in somewhat of a surprising move, rejected the idea of joining the Central Texas Clean Air Coalition. To absolutely no one’s surprise, the city voted to save $1.4 million in debt service by issuing refunding bonds on some of its outstanding obligations. What was surprising was that (1) the amount saved turned out to be $300,000 more than originally anticipated and (2) the council received the tantalizing piece of news that the city’s bond rating may improve.
The council voted 5-0 (Mayor Pro Tem Damon Fogley and council member Daphne Tenorio missed last night’s meeting) to deny a proposed ordinance establishing a process for "placement of traffic regulatory signs" that would have allowed citizens to appeal for stop signs directly to the council. Within the last 15 months, the council has approved the placement of unwarranted stop signs on three separate occasions.
The council directed the city’s staff to come up with a process for approving traffic control devices that does not include the city’s legislative body. That process would presumably involve a staff decision on whether to authorize a traffic warrant study on any proposed traffic control device with the final decision on whether to install the device based on the results of that study as well as some discretion on the part of the staff. The council itself, however, would no longer be involved in those decisions.
The ordinance under consideration would have allowed citizens desiring to have a stop sign installed in a place where preliminary examinations indicated such a device would not be warranted to put down a deposit with the city to help fund a full-fledged traffic warrant analysis anyway. If the analysis showed the device to be unwarranted, that deposit would be forfeited. However, the ordinance allowed citizens to appeal that traffic study decision to the full council that could vote to install the device even though it was not warranted.
"There isn’t anything that has occurred since the last meeting (on this ordinance) that has persuaded me that our policy should be anything other than we do not do unwarranted stop signs," Mayor Todd Webster said immediately after Police Chief Jeff Barnett had outlined the changes made to the ordinance between the time it was originally discussed two weeks ago and last night’s formal first reading. Webster saluted council member Travis Mitchell’s efforts "to find a correct balance" with the ordinance, adding if the council approved the ordinance "I could live with it. But I don’t believe we should be doing unwarranted stop signs and I regret that I participated in some of those decisions in the past because all it did was encourage more people to come in and we ended up making decisions for political reasons" while ignoring public safety issues. "When you put up stop signs in places where they are not warranted there is the potential of a safety risk."
Mitchell said that he was working on additional language for the ordinance but, during the course of the discussion on the proposal, he realized "as good as the intentions are to create multiple paths to allow people to have a chance to have a traffic control device where they feel it should be, the conclusion I’ve come to what this ordinance is going to do to us is increase the pressure politically. When you ask someone to make a deposit and the results come back unwarranted there is an expectation that this process was put in place so that they could pay for a sign and then bring it back to city council and we would approve it. I know that’s how I would feel if I paid $800 because I wanted a study done. How could we vote ‘no’ (on a traffic control device) after passing an ordinance like this? While I did have language here to change the ordinance and I want the citizens to have a path, the path that they have is staff. I feel queasy every time somebody asks me for a stop sign. I feel like I’m not the one to make that decision. I’m not the one to bypass staff and make that decision because a few people support it or gave money. So, although I had two more paragraphs to add to this ordinance, it just dawned on me that we’re meddling in something than we shouldn’t. It should be staff’s decision. I think this (ordinance) is going to cause more problems than solutions."
Webster complimented Mitchell for this position. "Given the amount of work you’ve put into this, your change of opinion here says something," the mayor told the recently elected Mitchell.
After directing staff to come back with a written process explaining how it will base its decisions on where the install traffic control devices, the council approved council member Shane Arabie’s motion to deny the ordinance.
Although the council chambers were not flooded by concerned citizens wishing to express their opposition to the proposed alarm ordinance (one person speaking during public comments made passing reference to the ordinance, but he basically abused his speaking privilege by taking up nearly twice his allotted time railing against a roundabout that hasn’t even been officially proposed), council members acknowledged they were basically bowing to political pressure in tabling an ordinance that is routine in the overwhelming majority of Texas cities, namely the registration of alarms.
Webster said he had concerns about a third party being involved in the process.
"We do hope to bring you some information about opportunities to partner with third party alarm administrators," Barnett told the council. "We had one tentatively on the agenda that we pulled at the last minute so we could get some new numbers that were asked of staff and to coordinate that with the third party vendor. At $25 (per year) recommended registration for residents and a $50 (also paid annually) recommended fee for a business or commercial, when we discussed that with the alarm administrator they were looking at about a 49-51 percent split, with the 51 coming to the city. One council member asked us to look at some other pricing options — $10 and $20 and then $20 and $50, to be exact — and we sent that back to the company but they just weren’t able to put their numbers together to have it ready for this agenda."
"I recognize most other communities do this," Webster said, "but I’m not sure it would be wise to move forward and deal with this without getting better details about what the value proposition is going to be like. I’m going to suggest that we table this item to have an opportunity to get a little more detail about what the contract (with the third party vendor) might look like." Then, directly to Chief Barnett, the mayor said "I’m watching what’s going on and I’m afraid you’re getting into an area here the consequences of which may not be what you intend in terms of community reaction."
Although registrations would not be required until the beginning of next year, Mitchell argued that was not enough of "a buffer" to inform citizens about the registration requirement. He estimated only a quarter of all alarm holders would be registered by that time. He recommended that, instead of issuing a citation to those with unregistered alarms that summon a police response, that only a warning be handed out for the first offense.
After telling Mitchell he thought that was a good suggestion, Webster said "My skepticism is still about a third party arrangements for these types of things." The mayor said he has heard ten times as many citizens voice opposition to the proposed alarm ordinance than those opposing the idea of a roundabout on Kyle Parkway. "That should give you some sense of the community reaction to it. I’m not close minded to the idea if the data is there, if it’s going to solve our problems, if the proposal generates the revenue that will compensate us for all that extra work that is taking place and it truly would deter false alarms. I am just not convinced this ordinance will do that. So that’s what I’m looking for."
The mayor also said he was looking for "reassurance on the data privacy side of this." He said he had concerns about an outside firm "who has access and knowledge of everyone’s alarm."
Barnett did point out that 98.44 percent of all alarms Kyle police officers respond to are false alarms, which was tantamount to having one officer whose sole responsibility was dealing full-time with false alarms. I asked the chief about the possibility of separating the ordinances and possibly moving ahead with one that solely dealt with penalties for excessive false alarms. His reply:
"Our current and existing ordinance does ‘fine’ people for false alarms. The problem is the day-to-day management of that operation. We do not have the staff to keep up with the tabulation, letter sending, follow-up, and fine processing on a regular basis. We can easily get six months behind in sending out the collection letters, which leads to more false alarms. Plus we spend time waiting on alarm companies to call their customer and act as an intermediary while our officers are waiting at the scene. If we had that information from their alarm registration, we could contact them directly and save some time on scene."
After being tempted by the lure that the city might be in line for a grant to make the police fleet more fuel efficient, the council voted 3-2 to reject the invitation to joining the Central Texas Clean Air Coalition. Mitchell joined council members David Wilson and Becky Selbera in opposition to the invitation, suggesting it was not likely Kyle would be awarded the grant anyway and that they could see no other "real tangible benefit" (Mitchell’s words) in joining the coalition.
During the discussion to approve the refunding of $9 million in outstanding bonds that, according to the agenda item, would save the city $1.1 million, Finance Director Perwez Moheet revealed "We have an exceptionally positive update to share with you this evening regarding the refunding bonds. This morning we were able to price the refunding bonds at various maturity points to a Citi Group global market such that the final interest cost savings to the City of Kyle will now be approximately $1.4 million. This is an increase of $300,000 from our original cost-saving estimate."
Moheet credited the extra savings to the city’s "excellent credit rating and its strong financial position."
"In summary," Moheet told the council in his typically subdued way, "the City of Kyle had a great day in the tax exempt bond market this morning."
Then the city’s financial advisor, Chris Allen with First Southwest, told the council "This (refunding) process requires us to meet with the rating agencies, Standard & Poor’s. They affirmed your rating of AA-. But they moved the outlook from ‘stable’ to ‘positive’. What that means is ‘positive’ generally signifies they’re about to push you to the next notch. And the higher the rating, the lower the borrowing cost. So that’s kudos to you as management and your financial team here."
Allen said the positive review from S&P resulted from "the city’s economic expansion and property tax base growth which has resulted in improved wealth indicators. They also cite strong budgetary performance with an operating surplus in the General Fund and a slight operating surplus at the total government fund level. They cite the city has good reserves and is liquid."
In other action last night, the council:
The council also voted to table an ordinance involving alarm registration/false alarms and, in somewhat of a surprising move, rejected the idea of joining the Central Texas Clean Air Coalition. To absolutely no one’s surprise, the city voted to save $1.4 million in debt service by issuing refunding bonds on some of its outstanding obligations. What was surprising was that (1) the amount saved turned out to be $300,000 more than originally anticipated and (2) the council received the tantalizing piece of news that the city’s bond rating may improve.
The council voted 5-0 (Mayor Pro Tem Damon Fogley and council member Daphne Tenorio missed last night’s meeting) to deny a proposed ordinance establishing a process for "placement of traffic regulatory signs" that would have allowed citizens to appeal for stop signs directly to the council. Within the last 15 months, the council has approved the placement of unwarranted stop signs on three separate occasions.
The council directed the city’s staff to come up with a process for approving traffic control devices that does not include the city’s legislative body. That process would presumably involve a staff decision on whether to authorize a traffic warrant study on any proposed traffic control device with the final decision on whether to install the device based on the results of that study as well as some discretion on the part of the staff. The council itself, however, would no longer be involved in those decisions.
The ordinance under consideration would have allowed citizens desiring to have a stop sign installed in a place where preliminary examinations indicated such a device would not be warranted to put down a deposit with the city to help fund a full-fledged traffic warrant analysis anyway. If the analysis showed the device to be unwarranted, that deposit would be forfeited. However, the ordinance allowed citizens to appeal that traffic study decision to the full council that could vote to install the device even though it was not warranted.
"There isn’t anything that has occurred since the last meeting (on this ordinance) that has persuaded me that our policy should be anything other than we do not do unwarranted stop signs," Mayor Todd Webster said immediately after Police Chief Jeff Barnett had outlined the changes made to the ordinance between the time it was originally discussed two weeks ago and last night’s formal first reading. Webster saluted council member Travis Mitchell’s efforts "to find a correct balance" with the ordinance, adding if the council approved the ordinance "I could live with it. But I don’t believe we should be doing unwarranted stop signs and I regret that I participated in some of those decisions in the past because all it did was encourage more people to come in and we ended up making decisions for political reasons" while ignoring public safety issues. "When you put up stop signs in places where they are not warranted there is the potential of a safety risk."
Mitchell said that he was working on additional language for the ordinance but, during the course of the discussion on the proposal, he realized "as good as the intentions are to create multiple paths to allow people to have a chance to have a traffic control device where they feel it should be, the conclusion I’ve come to what this ordinance is going to do to us is increase the pressure politically. When you ask someone to make a deposit and the results come back unwarranted there is an expectation that this process was put in place so that they could pay for a sign and then bring it back to city council and we would approve it. I know that’s how I would feel if I paid $800 because I wanted a study done. How could we vote ‘no’ (on a traffic control device) after passing an ordinance like this? While I did have language here to change the ordinance and I want the citizens to have a path, the path that they have is staff. I feel queasy every time somebody asks me for a stop sign. I feel like I’m not the one to make that decision. I’m not the one to bypass staff and make that decision because a few people support it or gave money. So, although I had two more paragraphs to add to this ordinance, it just dawned on me that we’re meddling in something than we shouldn’t. It should be staff’s decision. I think this (ordinance) is going to cause more problems than solutions."
Webster complimented Mitchell for this position. "Given the amount of work you’ve put into this, your change of opinion here says something," the mayor told the recently elected Mitchell.
After directing staff to come back with a written process explaining how it will base its decisions on where the install traffic control devices, the council approved council member Shane Arabie’s motion to deny the ordinance.
Although the council chambers were not flooded by concerned citizens wishing to express their opposition to the proposed alarm ordinance (one person speaking during public comments made passing reference to the ordinance, but he basically abused his speaking privilege by taking up nearly twice his allotted time railing against a roundabout that hasn’t even been officially proposed), council members acknowledged they were basically bowing to political pressure in tabling an ordinance that is routine in the overwhelming majority of Texas cities, namely the registration of alarms.
Webster said he had concerns about a third party being involved in the process.
"We do hope to bring you some information about opportunities to partner with third party alarm administrators," Barnett told the council. "We had one tentatively on the agenda that we pulled at the last minute so we could get some new numbers that were asked of staff and to coordinate that with the third party vendor. At $25 (per year) recommended registration for residents and a $50 (also paid annually) recommended fee for a business or commercial, when we discussed that with the alarm administrator they were looking at about a 49-51 percent split, with the 51 coming to the city. One council member asked us to look at some other pricing options — $10 and $20 and then $20 and $50, to be exact — and we sent that back to the company but they just weren’t able to put their numbers together to have it ready for this agenda."
"I recognize most other communities do this," Webster said, "but I’m not sure it would be wise to move forward and deal with this without getting better details about what the value proposition is going to be like. I’m going to suggest that we table this item to have an opportunity to get a little more detail about what the contract (with the third party vendor) might look like." Then, directly to Chief Barnett, the mayor said "I’m watching what’s going on and I’m afraid you’re getting into an area here the consequences of which may not be what you intend in terms of community reaction."
Although registrations would not be required until the beginning of next year, Mitchell argued that was not enough of "a buffer" to inform citizens about the registration requirement. He estimated only a quarter of all alarm holders would be registered by that time. He recommended that, instead of issuing a citation to those with unregistered alarms that summon a police response, that only a warning be handed out for the first offense.
After telling Mitchell he thought that was a good suggestion, Webster said "My skepticism is still about a third party arrangements for these types of things." The mayor said he has heard ten times as many citizens voice opposition to the proposed alarm ordinance than those opposing the idea of a roundabout on Kyle Parkway. "That should give you some sense of the community reaction to it. I’m not close minded to the idea if the data is there, if it’s going to solve our problems, if the proposal generates the revenue that will compensate us for all that extra work that is taking place and it truly would deter false alarms. I am just not convinced this ordinance will do that. So that’s what I’m looking for."
The mayor also said he was looking for "reassurance on the data privacy side of this." He said he had concerns about an outside firm "who has access and knowledge of everyone’s alarm."
Barnett did point out that 98.44 percent of all alarms Kyle police officers respond to are false alarms, which was tantamount to having one officer whose sole responsibility was dealing full-time with false alarms. I asked the chief about the possibility of separating the ordinances and possibly moving ahead with one that solely dealt with penalties for excessive false alarms. His reply:
"Our current and existing ordinance does ‘fine’ people for false alarms. The problem is the day-to-day management of that operation. We do not have the staff to keep up with the tabulation, letter sending, follow-up, and fine processing on a regular basis. We can easily get six months behind in sending out the collection letters, which leads to more false alarms. Plus we spend time waiting on alarm companies to call their customer and act as an intermediary while our officers are waiting at the scene. If we had that information from their alarm registration, we could contact them directly and save some time on scene."
After being tempted by the lure that the city might be in line for a grant to make the police fleet more fuel efficient, the council voted 3-2 to reject the invitation to joining the Central Texas Clean Air Coalition. Mitchell joined council members David Wilson and Becky Selbera in opposition to the invitation, suggesting it was not likely Kyle would be awarded the grant anyway and that they could see no other "real tangible benefit" (Mitchell’s words) in joining the coalition.
During the discussion to approve the refunding of $9 million in outstanding bonds that, according to the agenda item, would save the city $1.1 million, Finance Director Perwez Moheet revealed "We have an exceptionally positive update to share with you this evening regarding the refunding bonds. This morning we were able to price the refunding bonds at various maturity points to a Citi Group global market such that the final interest cost savings to the City of Kyle will now be approximately $1.4 million. This is an increase of $300,000 from our original cost-saving estimate."
Moheet credited the extra savings to the city’s "excellent credit rating and its strong financial position."
"In summary," Moheet told the council in his typically subdued way, "the City of Kyle had a great day in the tax exempt bond market this morning."
Then the city’s financial advisor, Chris Allen with First Southwest, told the council "This (refunding) process requires us to meet with the rating agencies, Standard & Poor’s. They affirmed your rating of AA-. But they moved the outlook from ‘stable’ to ‘positive’. What that means is ‘positive’ generally signifies they’re about to push you to the next notch. And the higher the rating, the lower the borrowing cost. So that’s kudos to you as management and your financial team here."
Allen said the positive review from S&P resulted from "the city’s economic expansion and property tax base growth which has resulted in improved wealth indicators. They also cite strong budgetary performance with an operating surplus in the General Fund and a slight operating surplus at the total government fund level. They cite the city has good reserves and is liquid."
In other action last night, the council:
- Approved five persons — Terri Thompson, Paul Terry, Matt Janysek, Inocencio Vasquez and Edgar Rodriguez — for reappointment to the Board of Adjustments/Sign Control Board.
- Passed a comparatively innocuous ordinance regulating outdoor lighting standards that technically won’t apply to a third of the city’s area (recently annexed land) and to none of its residential districts.
- Approved a $4.5 million contract that, for all practical purposes, finally kick starts work on the Bunton Road bond project.
- Viewed pretty pictures of the city’s new website that is scheduled to go on-line next Tuesday.
- Canceled its meeting scheduled for October 4 due to conflicts with a Texas Municipal League conference in Austin as well as a National Night Out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)