In a goofy discussion and vote, city council places contradictory parking restrictions on Cromwell Drive

This blog had been retired for two almost two years, but because of my involvement in the Black Lives Matter movement, I revived it when pressure began mounting in earnest to replace the racist mascot at Hays High School. So I figured, if I was going to do it for that, I might as well take a look at what’s transpiring with our city government since that is what inspired the creation of this journal back in the fall of 2014. As a result, I watched my first city council meeting in more than two years last night and I felt a sense of relief in seeing it’s just as goofy as it was when I stopped paying attention back in 2018.

The real goofiness took place during a discussion about parking on Cromwell Drive by city council members who appear to have never spent any time on Cromwell Drive. Then additional goofiness was added by the city engineer who apparently knew even less about Cromwell than the council members.

So in short, here’s the result of the action the council took last night: On Cromwell, between Sampson and the unfortunate cul-de-sac, parking will only be allowed on the west side of the street. On Cromwell, between Sampson and Dorman, parking will be completely prohibited. On Cromwell, between Dorman and Kohlers Crossing, parking will only be allowed on the east side of the street. That’s three different parking restrictions on a road that’s just one mile in length — a road that will soon be, if it isn’t already, the most densely populated road in the city.

Parking restricted to the west, fire hydant side on the south end of Cromwell

Now it didn’t start out this badly. As mayor pro tem Rick Koch originally proposed the one-side-of-the-street-only parking ordinance, it would have limited the north-end parking to the west side only, just as it is on the south end of the street. But then came a discussion about fire hydrants and what side of the street they were on, which was my first clue that none of the council members — not a single one of them — had any familiarity with Cromwell Drive. For some reason, the council thought, parking should be only be allowed on the side opposite the hydrants. And, in theory, that’s all well and good. But if these people knew anything about Cromwell, they would know that not only is parking restricted to the side of the street containing the hydrants on the south end of the street, but that motorists consistently park their cars on that side of the street closer to the hydrants that is permitted by law, but are never ticketed for it. So why all the sudden concern about hydrants now?

At another point in this goofy discussion, council member Michael Tobias wondered if pedestrian walkways could be inserted to aid pedestrians in getting from the place where they must park their car to the place where they live. Seemed like a reasonable request.

Except.

“I’m not a great fan of mid-block pedestrian crossings,” said City Engineer Leon Barba, “but they exist. I’ve seen them throughout other cities.”

Other cities? OTHER CITIES??? How about seeing them not only right here in Kyle but right there on freaking Cromwell Drive? There are two — count ‘em, two! — mid-block pedestrian crossings on Cromwell between Sampson and Dorman. But no one on the council was informed enough about what they were voting about to contradict Barba. Yes, dear readers, things haven’t changed at all at City Hall.

Of course, these rwo mid-block pedestrian crossings are completely useless. Instead of serving what pedestrian crossings are supposed to accomplish — protecting pedestrians — they actually only paint a large target on pedestrians for the sake of oncoming motorists. But that’s another issue.

One of the two "non-existent" mid-block pedestrian crossings on Cromwell Drive 

Anyway, the ordinance passed unanimously on first reading and it was decided that there would be no need for a second reading so, yes, the city of Kyle now has three separate, distinct and different parking restrictions on one, one-mile-long road. That’s what I love about this body — consistency has never been a concern. I guess I could understand the lack of consistency in regulations around a city of 50,000 persons, but on one, one-mile road? C’mon.

But, like I said earlier, I find this somewhat comforting, It’s good to know that this government body hasn’t changed during my two-year sabbatical. They still adhere to the same premise: “If the choice is between the simple and the complicated/confusing, let’s always go with the latter.”

I, on the other hand, have changed. Two years ago, these types of actions by the city council made me fear for the future of the city I chose to call home for the remainder of my life. I actually lost a lot of sleep worrying about what these people were promulgating. That was damaging my health and that’s the reason I put The Kyle Report in hibernation.

Now, I just sit back and laugh. Because, when you think about, it really is funny.

As a postscript to all of this, I do want to go on record as saying I don’t believe the council deliberately intends to enact confusing, contradictory ordinances. That’s simply the result of something far more troubling. As I mentioned earlier in this article, the real problem is that members of the city council as well as the relevant city staff simply don’t take the time — they don’t make the effort — to study and become as informed as they should be about all the items on the council's agendas. I’m willing to bet not one member of the Kyle City Council took the time — made the effort — to make the short, one-mile drive, along the entire length of Cromwell Drive between the time they first saw this proposed ordinance on the agenda and the time they voted on it. If just one of them — just one of the seven — had mentioned the fact that parking was already restricted to the west, fire-hydrant side of Cromwell on the southern end of the street and then they voted to approve restricting parking on the other side of the street at the northern end, this vote might have still seemed strange and confusing but not completely without thought or reasoning. But not one of them did and the only explanation for that is simply they just weren’t well informed enough about what they were voting on.

Engineer: Burleson repairs to be “painful for our citizens”

City Engineer Leon Barba last night warned motorists that for about a year and a half, beginning shortly after Labor Day, driving on North Burleson Street will likely be "painful for our citizens" due the reconstruction activities taking place along that thoroughfare.

Two projects — the widening of Burleson and extending Marketplace Avenue from Burleson to the southbound I-35 frontage road — will begin almost simultaneously, Barba said, with the Marketplace project finishing much sooner than the Burleson repairs. In addition, once the project is complete, Burleson will end at a cul-de-sac just south of the low water crossing, thus eliminating the direct access to Burleson from the frontage road, the site of numerous traffic accidents including at least one fatality.

Barba told the City Council last night that the original estimate for the Burleson Street project, one of a handful of major road repairs Kyle voters signed off on with the approval of a bond package in 2013, was $8.1 million. The winning bid, he said, was $6.6 million and last night the council approved in a 5-0 vote (council members Damon Fogley and Daphne Tenorio missed last night’s meeting) awarding a contact not to exceed $6.9 million to M.A. Smith, an Austin-based contractor. The second lowest bid, Barba said, was $7.6 million, The reason for a contract amount that’s higher than the bid amount is that the contract includes a 5 percent contingency to cover, in Barba’s words, "surprises we didn’t anticipate."

"We did check on the credentials for the (winning) contractor," Barba said. "The contractor actually did a project for the city of Kyle — the wastewater line that led to ACC and, according to inspectors, they did a great job."

Barba said he expects work on the project to begin "right after Labor Day" at the southwest corner of the City Square and be completed sometime "in the spring of 2020." He also said the fork in the southbound frontage road that currently allows for a direct access to Burleson will remain "open" until the cul-de-sac is completed even though the Marketplace Avenue access will also be an available alternative as soon as right around the first of the year.

"Out contractor that’s going to be working on Burleson Street is going to have some big issues to work with," Barba said. "He’s got some small businesses that need all the business that they can get and we’re going to be closing sections of the road along that area. As we move on down the road toward the roundabout there’s sections of road that we’ll be closing also. It’s going to be painful for our citizens because of this construction. We’re estimating 15 to 18 months on that project so it’s going to be a painful process as we go through building that road."

He also said the railroad crossing at Burleson will be rebuilt by a contractor hired by the railroad and it is planned that its work will be completed right about the time the city’s contractor work on Burleson reaches the crossing. "There’s a big coordination project involved with that," Barba said.

The city’s engineer said the original estimate to extend Marketplace to I-35 was $800,000 and the bids came in considerably below that with a $613,244.73 contract approved, again by a 5-0 vote, last night.

"We plan to start this one in September also so we can get it knocked out before the end of the year," Barba told the council. "If weather permits, that could happen, but with the weather and the holidays we’re thinking that by January or February at the most we’ll see that road opened up."

Barba said the city is in discussions with the Texas Department of Transportation concerning installing a deceleration lane along the southbound I-35 frontage road leading to the Marketplace intersection. "That takes time to get that done," Barba said, which means that for the foreseeable future a 90-degree more or less turn off a road with a posted speed limit of 50 miles an hour, arguably not that much safer than the current configuration.

Mayor warns of special interests spreading “misinformation” about proposed bridge

In a prepared statement released today by the City of Kyle, Mayor Todd Webster said it is unfortunate that what he called special interest groups are "spreading disinformation" about the proposed bridge across the Blanco River that will be part of tonight’s city council discussions of five proposed amendments to the city’s Transportation Master Plan.

The statement featured a number of other city officials, including City Manager Scott Sellers, weighing in on the proposed bridge project.

"It is unfortunate that there are anti-development special interests spreading misinformation about the planned bridge," the city’s statement quotes the mayor as saying. "While it won't be built for over a decade, it is important that Kyle now take the necessary steps to plan for the city's future road needs."

The statement also quotes Sellers saying the bridge project is only in its "conceptual stage" and went on to quote Sellers as stressing "There are no plans to even let a contract out until approximately 2025."

The statement also tried to clarify exactly what CAMPO's role in the project will be, which is, according to the statement, no role at all. In fact, the statement argues, CAMPO screwed up by even placing a discussion of the bridge on a recent meeting agenda.


The text of the city’s statement:
"Kyle City Council will discuss and take possible action on several proposed amendments to its Transportation Master Plan at its October 4 meeting. The Transportation Master Plan was updated and adopted by City Council on March 15, 2016. City Council is being asked to consider the adoption of five amendments.

A brief explanation of each amendment is below:

Amendment #1 — Blanco River Span Bridge; the city has a contractual requirement to place this on our transportation plan based on the development agreement that was approved by City Council on May 3, 2016.
Amendment #2 — Kyle Parkway from Dacy Lane to Lehman Rd.; We are proposing a new route for the extension of Kyle Parkway, east of Dacy Lane, due to the fact that we will not be able to build any type of structure in the area of the reservoir.
Amendment #3 — Rebel Road/RM 150 from Center St. to IH35 Southbound Frontage Road; The intent is to provide another connection to I35 with the possibility of providing an underpass/overpass across the railroad tracks.
Amendment #4 — Bebee Rd. connection from Seton Parkway to Kyle Parkway; The proposed route would provide a direct connection for any proposed development on the north side of Bunton Branch.
Amendment #5 — Seton Parkway South Extension; Seton Parkway, by Goodwill, is currently a dead end. As development begins south of the dead end, the intent is to provide a connection to the new section of Philomena.

Kyle Mayor Todd Webster said one of these amendments, the Blanco River Span Bridge, has recently been a topic of discussion among some pockets of groups within Hays County and beyond.

"It is unfortunate that there are anti-development special interests spreading misinformation about the planned bridge," he said. "While it won't be built for over a decade, it is important that Kyle now take the necessary steps to plan for the city's future road needs."

Kyle’s Community Development Director, Howard Koontz, said, "The Blanco River Span Bridge is part of a development agreement (DA) between the City of Kyle and the Nance-Bradshaw Ranch."

The Nance Ranch has been in the same family since the original land grant was received from Mexico in the mid-1800s. "They care about their family land and desire to be the best stewards of the land as possible," Assistant City Manager James Earp said.

Kyle City Council approved this agreement in May 2016.

Koontz said the development agreement was included in the council agenda packet, which was published prior to the meeting where Kyle City Council approved it. Since they were posted, those documents have been available for public review on the city’s website.

"Council also discussed the issue in open session before taking a vote," Koontz said.

City records show that the landowners applied for voluntary annexation in February 2016; the city annexed the property, consisting of several thousand acres, in June of that same year. Koontz said the city published legal notices and notified affected neighbors and landowners in accordance with state law regarding the annexation.

"The owners of the Nance-Bradshaw Ranch, private property in the western part of Hays County, propose to develop a master-planned community that may include single family, multi-family, commercial and office sites along with recreational facilities, public parks, open space and space for public use," Koontz said. "According to the DA, development on this land shall not exceed 9,000 living unit equivalents."

Within that agreement, the city agreed to amend its Transportation Master Plan to include the roads necessary to provide sufficient access to the property to reasonably accommodate traffic when the project is completely built out. Current access to the property includes a low water crossing that is subject to flooding and not suitable for most vehicles otherwise.

Leon Barba, city engineer, said, "The City of Kyle submitted an application on August 3 to the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) to include the proposed Blanco Span Bridge in the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The submittal description read, ‘A bridge spanning the property over the Blanco River is also part of the DA. Multi-lane span bridge, including a pedestrian/bike lane, starting at the elevated western Blanco River bank to a new road connecting to Hilliard Road.’"

Earp, said CAMPO staff mistakenly placed it on the agenda for TIP funding. "We didn't ask CAMPO for public funding. Our application was simply to add it to the RTP," he said. The application required a cost estimate, Earp said, and city staff used figures from bridges over I-35 as a baseline.

CAMPO held an open comment period from Aug. 21 to Sept. 21, with open houses held throughout the region between Aug. and Sept. 6. A public hearing was held at the Transportation Policy Board on Sept. 11.

"As with many proposed projects on the CAMPO 2040 plan, the Blanco Span Bridge is in the conceptual stage," Kyle City Manager Scott Sellers said. "There are no plans to even let a contract out until approximately 2025. The bridge is a line on a map at this point and would need to go through the engineering and design process prior to any construction."

Earp explained that part of the Nance Ranch is over the recharge area for the Edwards Aquifer.

"Any development or construction in that area will be protected and developed according to the state laws and rules of the Edwards Aquifer Authority, which is precisely why they have rules in place to allow development," he said.

Koontz said, "Should the project move forward, the City of Kyle will comply with all state requirements and regulations regarding environmental protections, which may include studies to determine any adverse impact to the local environment, including any impact down river."

The intention is to design a tension span bridge that would not have footings in the river and would not affect the water flow, Earp said.

"It would be high enough in elevation to be traversable during any flood event, including the most recent 500-plus year events that the basin experienced," Earp said. "We desire to design a bridge over the Blanco that will serve the Western portion of the Nance Ranch, and possibly those neighbors beyond if interconnectivity can be managed. That bridge will serve as a life line to those that need a way to cross the Blanco and other low water crossings, to access grocery stores, work or medical facilities during times of severe flash flooding."

He added that it would also help emergency services that need to get into the future development.

Koontz reiterated, "The City of Kyle will ensure that any project in our city limits meets all applicable laws and is in line with environmental regulations. Our goal is to engage in responsible development that benefits the city overall as well as its residents and businesses."

Council may vote on bridge, other changes to transportation plan

City Engineer Leon Barba said today the proposed "updates" to the city’s Transportation Master Plan he intends to outline to the city council Wednesday night not only include a much-discussed $30 million bridge across the Blanco River but a link from the southern tip of Rebel Road to I35 that could include an underpass or an overpass at the railroad tracks near West First Street. He also said it is expected that developers could bear all the costs of the projects.

Barba confirmed that, as of this moment, these are plans only — no time lines have been set for any of these projects nor have any priorities been assigned to these five proposed amendments.

"A very rough estimate was provided for the Blanco Bridge of $30 million," Barba said. "Estimates have not been prepared for any of the other amendments. Funding has not been identified for any of these projects. These projects will probably be developer driven, so the expectation will be they pay for all of the costs unless other agreements are made."

As simply as I can make it, the five changes proposed for the plan that was last updated on the Ides of March last year are:

1. A bridge over the Blanco River that, on the aerial photo submitted as part of the agenda package, truly does look like a Bridge to Nowhere, but is planned to connect Cypress Road to a major development still in its infancy on the west side of the Blanco. This idea appears simple and straightforward: It would serve much the same purpose as the Bay Bridge does in connecting San Francisco to Berkeley/Oakland and the rest of Northern California.

"We have a contractual requirement to place this on our transportation plan based on the development agreement that was approved by City Council on May 3, 2016," Barba said.

2. A significant, albeit what appears to be a less expensive, change in the plans for the eastward expansion of Kyle Parkway. Instead of extending it directly to that point on Goforth Road where its meets Cotton Gin Road (Highway 129), the change has it doing a dogleg south so that it runs just west of and parallel to Onyx Lake Drive to Bunton. The change appears to cut the length of the extension in half and eliminate the need to find a way to traverse the reservoir just south of Covent Drive. In fact, Barba confirmed the location of the reservoir was a prime motivator in recommending this change.

"We are proposing a new route for the extension of Kyle Parkway, east of Dacy Lane, due to the fact that we will not be able to build any type of structure in the area of the reservoir," Barba said.

3. An extension of Rebel Road that appears to bypass Scott Street to the west ever so slightly before joining West First Street which eventually will be extended all the way to I-35,  meaning, of course, an additional railroad crossing of some sort on the south side of town.

"The intent is to provide another connection to I35 with the possibility of providing an underpass/overpass across the railroad tracks," Barba said.

4. A road connecting Bebee to Kyle Parkway that appears in the photos provided to barely skirt the eastern side of Lowes and Walgreen’s.

"The proposed route would provide a direct connection for any proposed development on the north side of Bunton Branch," Barba explained.

5. An extension of Seton Parkway that’s south of Kyle Parkway southward about a tenth of a mile before it takes a 90-degree turn east to Philomena.

"Seton Parkway, by Goodwill, is currently a dead end," Barba acknowledged. "As development begins south of the dead end, the intent is to provide a connection to the new section of Philomena."

The city engineer stressed he could go into much more detail on each of these proposed changes at tomorrow night’s council meeting which was moved from its usual Tuesday evening time to avoid a conflict with tonight’s National Night Out. The aforementioned aerial depictions of he proposed changes can be found by accessing the link provided at the bottom of this page. There is no public hearing attached to this item so any citizen who would like to address one or more of these changes must do so during the Citizens Comment period listed on this agenda.

There is, however, a public hearing attached to another item on the agenda — one to create an Office/Institutional zoning category in Kyle.

"The highest rated need for new land uses for the city of Kyle, as identified in the Economic Development Strategic Plan, is additional, local employment opportunities for our residents," Planning/Community Development Director Howard J. Koontz wrote in a memo to council members. "Currently, most of Kyle’s land area falls into three categories: agriculture uses, residential uses, and retail commercial uses. One missing component is employment uses, to keep our population local throughout the course of the day. The introduction of the Office/Institutional category creates a district where professional businesses would be most likely to locate, without the unintended consequence of objectionable outdoor storage, or nuisances like dust, vibration or noise.

"The new district … has been created as an appropriate location for employment centers, and those activity uses of the community that aren’t necessarily centered on retail purchases of goods and/or services, "Koontz added.

Other noteworthy items on Wednesday’s agenda include:

• An item that appears to be missing an essential ingredient. Agenda item 16 reads: "Consider a resolution of the City of Kyle, Texas, submitting nomination(s) to the Hays Central Appraisal District Chief Appraiser for election as a member the 2018-19 Hays Central Appraisal District Board of Directors." OK, then the resolution reads, in part, "The mayor and city council do hereby submit, in accordance with the provisions of the applicable law, the following nomination(s) for candidate(s) for each position to be filled for the 2018-19 Hays Central Appraisal District Board of Directors:" And then there’s a blank. No names are included in the resolution. I guess we’re supposed to wait until tomorrow night’s "Big Reveal" to learn whose being nominated. But then the item didn’t specify the council should "consider" the nominations — obviously there might not be enough time for that before the "Big Reveal" — but only to "consider a resolution." So there’s that.
• The reappointment of three individuals — Dex Ellison, Timothy Kay and Jo Fenety — to the Planning & Zoning Commission as well as three others — Tony Spano, head of land acquisition and development at Bigelow Homes; Neal Kelly, vice president and COO of Seton Medical Center; and Harish Malkani, CEO and president of R.S.I. — to the Economic Development & Tourism Board.

Tonight’s council meeting — quick and inconclusive

Boy, did I underestimate the alacrity of our City Council. Last week I wrote of this pending get- together that it "should last, oh, I don’t know, all of 10 minutes at the most." Try one-fifth that time. The five council members who attended (Becky Selbera and Daphne Tenorio didn’t) took less than two minutes to dispense with the city’s business this evening. Less than two minutes — from the call to order to adjournment. Roll call. Citizens comments period. The dispensing of three agenda items. All accomplished in under two minutes. I mean when these fellas want to get it done and get out of there, they get it done and get out of there.

I also wrote last week I had questions about one of the three items on tonight’s agenda — the $141,826.03 change order for construction on Lehman Road at the Goforth intersection. I was hoping the council would clarify the source of that money. But, no. Wham! Bam! Two minutes! We’re done! No explanations necessary.

So I decided to ask City Engineer Leon Barba about it after the council adjourned. I told him I was under the impression the money was simply being shifted from the amount the city was paying the contractor working on the Lehman Road part of the road bonds project over to the contractor working on the Goforth Road project since that latter one is just about finished and the Lehman deal hasn’t really even begun. And the city desperately wanted to get this intersection completed before classes resumed at Lehman High School which, of course, is located right at that intersection.

However, just as I grossly underestimated the speed at which the council dispensed with business this evening, so was I wrong — OK, partially wrong — about the source of this $41,826.03. Barba told me that part of the money is coming from the Lehman budget, but another part of it is new money. Now, presumably, since this falls under the auspices of the 2013 bond proposal that was approved by voters, by "new money" he meant some so-far unencumbered proceeds from the sale of those bonds the voters told the city to sell to pay for this construction. The way I understand it, it’s illegal to use any other money for a voter-approved bond project other than funds derived from the sale of the bonds the voters approved.

But when I asked Barba exactly how much was coming from the Lehman account and how much of this was "new money," he flipped through several pages of his notebooks, looked at the same ledger I examined when I wrote my story last week and came to the same conclusion I did after examining that ledger: "I don’t know," he said. "I don’t seem to have those figures with me." Then he gave me the familiar City Hall Shuffle — "Let me find out and I’ll get back to you."

Here’s the real bottom line. I really think the City Council members could have stretched their meeting out to, say, three minutes at the most, to ask the same question and possibly gets an answer of one sort or another on the record, even if it was the same answer Barba gave me.

Speed kills. In this instance, the victim was clarity.

City Engineer wants Council to see Stormwater Master Plan proposals by mid-January

City Engineer Leon Barba told 10 individuals representing seven different engineering firms today he wanted to be able to have proposals for a Stormwater Master Plan that would clearly delineate what steps the city needs to take to mitigate its drainage needs in general and to eliminate possible catastrophic flooding in particular ready for the City Council in time for its second meeting in January.

"We’re trying to move fast with this project," Barba told the group.

The representatives from the firms gathered in the Public Works Department’s conference room to obtain the information they needed to determine whether they wanted to submit a proposal to draft the plan.

According to the city’s website, the goal of the plan "is to provide a comprehensive evaluation of existing drainage conditions throughout the City and the Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) by developing an accurate and current understanding of the City’s drainage infrastructure and potential solutions to problems, both now and in the future. This understanding should include a comprehensive inventory, accurate simulation, problem area identification and problem source/cause, and a comprehensive list of Capital Improvement Projects, including costs and funding mechanisms, designed to address system deficiencies."

 "We don’t have a budget established yet," Barba told them. "We’re trying to see what the scope of work is going to entail, what kind of work we can get and then we’ll decide what we can afford to do. Our city manager wants a good plan, but we need to get as good a plan as we can get for the money we have decided to provide." Barba did indicate the starting point the city wants to pay for a master plan is in the neighborhood of $150,000.

Barba told the group he wants their submissions by 5 p.m. Wednesday, Dec. 21, which he said would give the staff the time it needed to study them and have a recommendation for the Council ready for its Jan. 17 agenda. He told the group their proposals should be no more than 10 double-sided pages.

"We’re not the City of Austin," Barba said, "We’re not even San Marcos. So if you have experience with smaller cities, that helps. If you have experience with a big city, that helps also."

In response to a question, he said their proposals should assume a master plan is to encompass all land within the city limits of Kyle, including MUDs such as Plum Creek, but not necessarily Kyle’s ETJ. In response to another question Barba said their proposals need not include plans for dealing with stormwater quality. "But, yes, we do want to look at stormwater quality in the future," Barba added.

Their proposals should include a public outreach component, Barba said, even if that outreach is limited to public hearings held during City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission hearings.

After the meeting, Barba told me that the attendance at this gathering was slightly less than half the number that usually come for these pre-submission briefings. The city was also represented by Stormwater Utility Director Kathy Roecker and Public Works Director Harper Wilder. The engineering firms represented were Dannenbaum, K Friese, HDR, Halff, MAS, Doucet and Alliance Transportation.

Among the specific items these firms are required to address in their proposals are:

• Detailed analysis of known and potential flooding/drainage issues.
• Preparation of an overall drainage model for the City and the ETJ.
• Preparation of a drainage Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) program that includes budget estimates for proposed improvements.
• Recommended prioritization of CIP projects.
• Best Management Practices for maintenance of current and future infrastructure.
• Funding mechanisms for CIP projects including review and recommendations related to the City’s drainage utility fund.

Current status of the road bond projects

As promised, after getting that "much needed sleep" I referred to this morning (or at least enough sleep for a three-quarters-of-a-century-old homo sapien), I will now return to last night’s city council meeting during which City Engineer Leon Barba presented the following update on the five road bond projects:

Marketplace: Compete as of last week.

Goforth from I-35 to Bunton Creek Road, 1.18 miles: "Work began on that project March 21 of this year. This is a 13-month contract so theoretically we should wrap this contract up in April 2017. As of Sept. 1 the project was at 36 percent complete and 34 percent of time used. Currently the contractor is working from Bunton Creek to Steeplechase and we expect that to be open by Oct. 7, weather permitting. We’re still working through some utility problems we have out there." Barba added the city will be erecting additional signage to help motorists navigate around the construction and to make it easier to access the businesses located along Goforth.

Goforth Road Extension, Bunton Creek Road to Kyle Parkway, .2 of a mile: "The contractor still plans to start in late October on that project so there’s no delay in starting that project."

Bunton Creek Road: "Council awarded that $4.6 million contract on Aug. 2. We’re going to start it on Nov. 4. The contractor is out there working on some non-critical items just to get started. We’re having utility issues out there and we’re trying to get those resolved."

Burleson Street, from North Street to the I-35 frontage road, 1.32 miles: "Plans been completed since May. We’re working on five parcels we’re trying to acquire. One of those is very difficult. The lending institution is requiring a lot of things, including a survey of the whole property rather than just the little piece that we need. One owner has been non-responsive, but we continue to reach out. We weren’t able to agree on a price with another owner, so we’re going to have to find another alternative solution, some of which may include not completing portions of the project. We’re still trying to finish our negotiations to get the railroad to build that section of track we need at Burleson Street. Based on that, we’re thinking our date to start that project is going to slip. Initially, we were looking at November of this year. We’re thinking at best we’re going to have to start that project in March 2017."

City Council ponders road bond project delays, alarms, innovative gateway signage, stop signs and, yes, another roundabout idea for FM 1626

(Updated Friday 9:30 a.m.)

While thankfully lacking in the melodramatics that have unfortunately plagued some Kyle City Council meetings of late, Tuesday’s final July agenda meeting was not wanting for substance with discussions on whether to and how to allow unnecessary stop signs, a fascinating design concept for "Welcome to Kyle" signs at either end of I-35, a possible two-month delay in the remaining road bond projects, the creation of a community garden, requiring every homeowner and business with an alarm system to register those alarms and be subject to a fine for excessive false alarms, and the possibility of finally installing a much-debated roundabout on FM 1626, this one to be located at a point about midway between Marketplace and Kohler’s Crossing, where Dorman Road intersects the parkway.

Whew! Where to begin.

I think I’ll start toward the end of the meeting and work my way to the beginning.

The council voted 5-1 (council member Becky Selberra missed last night’s meeting due to illness and council member Daphne Tenorio voted against) to let TxDOT know the city supports a TxDOT plan to install a roundabout at the main entry point to the Plum Creek neighborhood from FM 1626 (Kyle Parkway). As many might remember, a huge debate ensued a little more than a year ago over the idea of building a roundabout at FM 1626 and Kohler’s Crossing. That debate, however, involved the use of city funds for the construction of the amenity and finally TxDOT simply stepped in and said, in effect, "Stop your endless arguing. We’re just going to put a traffic light there." And, of course, that’s exactly what TxDOT did.

This time, however, it appears (although it’s not absolutely guaranteed) that TxDOT will foot the entire bill for the cost of installing a roundabout at this three-way interchange. And let me be clear about one thing: Although there are plenty of traffic circles in Kyle, including one recently installed where Marketplace dead ends into Burleson Road, as far as I know there is nothing in the city that could actually be properly classified as a roundabout. This will give you some idea of the difference, although Kyle’s traffic circles are much smaller than your average traffic circles.

Council member Tenorio felt more citizen input was needed before the council went on record as telling TxDOT the city was fine with the idea of roundabout there, but the other council members decided it was OK just to tell TxDOT to proceed. No one mentioned a timetable on when construction might begin on this project and, frankly I didn’t think to ask City Manager Scott Sellers about a construction time line after last night’s meeting. I have, however, sent an email to the city’s spokesperson requesting that information. (Update: The city's spokesperson forwarded an e-mail to me Friday morning in which Sellers told her "I didn't discuss this [with TxDOT], but will try to verify the next time I speak with them.")

The entire council wrapped their collective arms around the notion of the city requiring the registration with the city of all alarms installed in homes and businesses after Police Chief Jeff Barnett revealed that out of 1,500 alarms police responded to last year, 1,495 or an astounding 99.67 percent, were false alarms. The national average for false alarms is much higher than I would have imagined, somewhere between 94 and 98 percent, but 99.67 percent is simply outrageous.

The amendment to the city’s current alarm ordinance approved by the council last night, would, in the words of Chief Barnett, require anyone with an alarm system in their home or business to "come to the police department to obtain a permit and pay a permit fee and then your permit would be good for 12 months." (The amount of the fee will most likely be established when the council reviews the entire fee schedule during its upcoming budget deliberations.)

Barnett said it takes a police officer between 15 and 20 minutes per alarm call "to make their way to that call, to check the facility out, make contact with the owner if they’re not on the site and then clear that call." Translated, that means close to 500 police man hours were wasted last year responding to false alarms.

"The goal of this amendment is to get false alarms down to zero and keep our officers out on the street," Barnett told the council.

Zero false alarms is, of course, an impossible goal. From experiences I’ve had on this issue working with the police in Dallas, most false alarms are caused by things like a household cat triggering a motion detector that sets off an alarm in a residence. How, other than cruelly keeping pets caged when their owners are not at home, is a homeowner going to prevent those kinds of incidences?

Those exempt from having to obtain an alarm permit from the police, Barnett said, included "financial institutions as identified in the Bank Protection Act of 1968," governmental users such as schools and local, state and federal agencies and those over the age of 65 would still need to register their alarms but would be exempt from the fee requirement.

Barnett said the ordinance allows for three false alarms per permit, but the fourth and fifth one in any calendar year would result in a $50 fine, numbers six and seven cost $75 and anything above that costs $100 per false alarm. Anyone with more than 15 false alarms in a calendar year could have their permits revoked.

"Our goal as a police department is not to discourage alarms," Barnett said. "We encourage people to put in burglar alarms, panic alarms, medical alarms and fire alarms. But we want them to own and operate them in a very responsible manner so we don;’t have as many false alarms."

There was some concern among council members, mainly expressed by council member Travis Mitchell, about getting the word out to those Kyle residents and business owners that they will soon be required to have their alarms registered, but, as I said earlier, in the end the council voted unanimously to endorse the chief’s plan,.

Mitchell also raised some concerns about a proposed policy governing unnecessary stop signs. Under the proposed ordinance, which eventually was tabled, any group of residents who wished to have a stop sign or other traffic controlling device installed in their neighborhood where a preliminary city study indicated such a device was unnecessary would have to pay a deposit ($500 was the amount bandied about although nothing was set in stone) to fund a full-fledged traffic warrant study. Mitchell’s concern was that neighborhoods without homeowners’ associations would be at a disadvantage when it came to coming up with that $500.

However, others, including City Manager Scott Sellers and Mayor Todd Webster came right out and said the city should simply prohibit unwarranted traffic control devices.

"It is staff’s recommendation that we look at internally all requests for signs, and any sign that doesn’t meet warrant is not erected," Sellers said flatly. And to add some emphasis, he said "That is our position. It will always be our position."

And after the meeting was over Mayor Webster confirmed he would not oppose an ordinance that prohibited the installation of unwarranted, unnecessary traffic control devices, but he doubts the rest of council would go along with him. At the very least, he said, he would like to see any ordinance that might permit unwarranted devices also explain the possible hazards such devices might cause.

The gateway signage concept has to be seen to really be appreciated. Having said that, however, I, along with everyone else attending last night’s meeting, saw a representation of the sign and I’m still not sure I completely "got" it. I’m not going to even try to put it in words so I will just relate how Sellers described it to the council:

"It’s two sheets of aluminum or some sheet metal, the first sheet being cut out so what you see there is (a map of the state of Texas), the word ‘Kyle’ and the water tower — those are cut out of the first sheet. Behind is a solid sheet and in between those two sheets is a row of LED lights that shine up on that back sheet to provide an illumination that, especially in the evening, provides a very sharp 3-D effect back through the cutout."

See!! I told you that you really had to see it for yourself, that words can’t do it justice.

"It really embraces modernism," Sellers said. "It embraces the demographic that represents the majority of Kyle citizens (whatever that means -- my words, not his). It embraces the brick on the pedestal. So it really tries to encompass what we currently today stand for.

"Now the great thing about this sign is, it’s inexpensive, compared to the other large, monument signs," Sellers continued. "Sometimes, not to be too critical, I see gateway signs along the interstate and they look like large tombstones. We definitely did not want to commemorate our death to people driving by the city. We wanted to show we’re vibrant, we’re alive."

Personally, as much as I loved Seller’s tombstone line, I did think the comparatively low cost was not actually "the great thing about this sign." What I thought was the great thing was what Sellers said next:

"As we continue to grow and redefine who we are, that front sheet can easily be replaced. So maybe the water tower isn’t the image that we want in a few years. We can pull down the front sheet and replace it with one that has a different cut-out."

Now that’s cool. That’s different. That’s unique. A gateway sign with an interchangeable message.

Moments before Sellers talked about the signs, another one of the city’s interns from Texas State, Zohaib Qadri, outlined plans for an adopt-a-street program that would go along way to enhancing beautification efforts as well as a concept for a Community Garden on what is currently vacant land behind Seton Medical Center.

In the evening’s very first presentation, City Engineer Leon Barba told council members something they didn’t really relish hearing:

"The fact is Goforth from I-35 to Bunton Creek Road is 23.3 percent complete. As you know we had a significant bout with bad weather. Utilities, as I’ve mentioned before, have always been a problem and we’re still having problems with utilities. We were promised those utilities would be cleared and guess what? We’re still finding utilities in the road. Right now the focus is getting the section of road between Brent and just south of Steeplechase open before school starts. School starts Aug. 22. But the teachers come in a week earlier so we really have to figure out a way they can get into the school while we’re doing that construction. So the focus right now is at least getting that section done."

Mayor Webster asked Barba how this delay would delay the start of work on the Bunton project.

"We’re thinking two to three months," Barba replied.

"And the Goforth extension as well?" the mayor asked.

"Yes," Barba said. "Same contractor."

"That’s not good," the mayor replied.

For what it’s worth, Barba said what had been referred to as the Goforth Extension (or the free road project because it was inserted without effecting the bond package) from Bunton Creek Road to Kyle Parkway is now officially designated as Philomena Drive.

In other action last night, the council:

• Tearing a page from the late Spiro T, Agnew’s Catalog of Jingoism passed a resolution declaring everyone wearing a police uniform is a paragon of virtue and expressing its sorrow over the deaths of officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge, It also ordered copies of the resolution be sent to those aforementioned cities but, thankfully, not to the family of Rodney King.
• Postponed a presentation on the Kyle Vista Park Public Private Partnership Proposal, which is somewhat of a shame because I, like probably so many others, have absolutely no idea what that partnership proposal is all about.
• Certified the appointments of Aaron Townsend and Cindy Lawson to the Civil Service Commission.
• Adopted a whole host of national and international codes.
• Approved a Memorandum of Understanding between Hayes Caldwell Public Utility Agency and the cities of Kyle, Buda and San Marcos for the exchange of water.
• Adopted the rules that will govern council meetings until the next council election.
• Learned the city manager will unveil a draft of his proposed FY 2016-17 budget on Friday. Sellers assured me after the meeting a copy of that proposed budget will be available to the public on the city’s website by the end of the day Friday as well.
• For the first time in memory, did not conduct an executive session.