Fogley won’t seek re-election, Tenorio announces food giveaway

The two most newsworthy events at last night’s city council meeting came (1) after the meeting adjourned — when council member Damon Fogley informed me he did not plan on seeking a second term — and (2) really before the meeting got down to dealing with action items — when council member Daphne Tenorio took advantage of the citizens comments period to announce a mammoth (at least for this neck of the woods) food distribution day Saturday Aug. 18. Sandwiched between these two items was a lot of bickering, petty sniping and council members generally making fools of themselves as they danced around a bonfire of flaming proposed charter amendments.

Fogley said his decision not to run again was based solely on the fact that amount of time he needs to devote to running his business is far greater than it was three years when, in fact, he wasn’t a business owner at all.

"One of the main reasons I originally wanted to run for council is because I wanted to go into government, I wanted to eventually become a city manager," Fogley said. "But I took a turn another way when I became a business owner and I really like being a business owner."

Fogley confided he is seriously considering returning to college to seek one or more business degrees.

"I like what I do — it’s a very diverse business," Fogley said. "I have 10 employees now. We’re growing. "We’ve got some huger opportunities coming up."

Fogley said it appears he will be on the cover of a business magazine that will come out next month and "we have a reality show that also might be coming through. So there have been some big doors that have opened up with that.

"I’m just tapped out on time right now," he stated. "I’m still a full-time. paramedic, still heavily involved with the VFW. I really enjoyed serving on the council and I was really on the fence about (seeking re-election) until a couple of weeks ago. But the reason I’m not running is a time thing and I’m at the point now where it’s really jeopardizing opportunities for my business."

Fogley pledged to give 100 percent of his energy to the job of councilman right until his last day on the dais "and I want to make sure whoever comes up here and takes my seat is the right person for the job."

Fogley said he is also considering moving his residence to an area where he is trying to develop his business."It’s a franchise that I own," he explained. "I own three territories and I have an opportunity to purchase another region."

Fogley said he has no one in mind to succeed him. "I’ve only talked to three people, but I’m sure now more people are going to come out."

I mentioned Robert Rizzo, who filed to run in District 2 a year ago but was ruled ineligible because of a residency issue, who just this week filed to run for Fogley’s District 5 seat. "I’ve never met him," Fogley told me. "I don’t know anything about him. I don’t have anyone specifically in mind but if anyone is thinking about running I would like them to at least approach me and I’d like to know why they are running." He said he would welcome meeting Rizzo face-to-face "so I could learn what his motives are for running because I may support him depending on who he is running against."

The food giveaway Tenorio announced is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. Aug. 18 on the Lehman High School parking lot and will be open to anyone with a drive able vehicle in which groceries, perishables as well as canned goods, can be loaded. Tenorio said groceries packed into six 18-wheelers are planned to be distributed during the event.

"Everyone is welcome to participate," she said. "No one has to qualify. It’s completely done by a drive-through. A family comes to the first stop, registers, a sticker is put on their window signifying how many members are in their family, goes to the next stop where canned food is placed in their trunk and then it goes from canned foods to dairies, to produce to meats."

The plans, as she outlined them, call for 100 church volunteers to on hand to aid in the distribution and "I’ve reached out to the Rotary Club and other non-profit groups for assistance."

"This will be the biggest distribution the Capital Food Bank has done and we’re real excited to be able to do this for our citizens," Tenorio said. "I think this a great opportunity to stock family food pantries right before school starts."

And those two events ended the statesmanship part of last night’s council meeting. Most of the rest of the time was consumed by seeing which council member could score the most points on the proposed charter amendment Wackometer. Warning to sitting council members: I would strongly advise you to never, ever watch a video recording of this meeting. It would be akin to watching a recording of a show-and-tell presentation you made in the first or second grade. "Holy cow!! I can’t believe I was ever that bad, that immature, that stupid sounding. Now I see why all the other kids were laughing at me."

Take all the discussions about the way in which the charter calls for council members to be compensated for their services. The argument was between one side on the council that argued people should not be dis-incentivized for running for a seat on the council and the other who argued people should view council service as a noble calling without regard to compensation and even another side that yelled Joe Average Citizen needed a voice in the matter (completely ignoring the obvious which was that this was supposed to be a discussion on whether Joe Average Citizen would have a voice on the matter in November at the voting booth). However, no one (except, to his credit, Mayor Travis Mitchell every so often, but no one else), dealt with the elephant in the room, the central, overriding issue which is the current charter language is a mess, it’s meaningless and it must be changed in some form or another.

The charter, in its current form, says (Section 3.09) "The mayor shall be paid two hundred dollars per month and each other member of the council shall be paid one hundred dollars per month." All well and good so far. You could argue whether that’s too much or too little, but that’s an argument for another day. Yet, that is exactly the argument that council became embroiled in last night, completely ignoring the real problem which is simply this: The most recent charter review commission completely botched this section of the charter by adding (and, admittedly, a majority of the voters didn’t help either) the following: "The council may appoint a citizen committee not more often than every three years to review the monthly compensation and the committee may recommend the council approve a reasonable adjustment to the monthly compensation of members of the council." Absolutely worthless. Regardless of whether such a committee is ever formed and regardless of what "a reasonable adjustment to the monthly compensation of members of the council" it might recommend, the council would be completely powerless to follow the recommendation because the charter will still say ""The mayor shall be paid two hundred dollars per month and each other member of the council shall be paid one hundred dollars per month." And as long as those words are part of the charter, that’s the law of the land. So the subject of the debate is not how much council members should be paid but whether the council should rid the charter of the idiot language and change it into something meaningful.

In the interest of mediation, I would like to offer the following as a template for a compromise solution and possible charter/ordinance language on the issue. I believe it is a more comprehensive approach than those that have previously been discussed. It not only encompasses but broadens the notion of two public meetings Mayor Travis Mitchell desired to have before city council on any proposed compensation change and it preserves the notion of an independent committee, which many on the council appeared to favor. In fact, it really doesn’t deviate all that much from the intent of the current language. This change would have to take place at two different times and it would go along these lines:

Section 3.09: "Not more than once every three years, the council may appoint a Compensation Audit and Review Committee which may recommend the council approve an adjustment to the monthly compensation of the members of the council. Until such time as the first compensation adjustment is approved by an affirmative vote of at least five council members, the mayor shall be paid two hundred dollars per month and each other member of the council shall be paid one hundred dollars per month. No adjustment of $1,000 (this number is negotiable) per month or greater may take effect until 60 days after an affirmative vote by a majority of voters casting ballots on the proposed adjustment during the next available General Election."

The following language — or words that convey the same thing — should be included in an ordinance, but not embedded in the charter, to enable the council to create and outline the basic parameters and scope of the Compensation Audit and Review Committee. "The Compensation Audit and Review Committee must include at least one Certified Public Accountant, at least one active member of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) or the National Human Resources Association (NHRA) and at least five residents of Kyle who are registered voters. (If someone wants to argue these five need not be registered voters, I could live with that). This committee is required, as part of its review and its recommendation process, to collect data on the compensation package offered to municipally elected officials in at least 10 other Texas cities with a population comparable to Kyle’s and to include that data as part of its recommendations. In addition, it must solicit and record for the record public input on any and all recommendations and this public input should include, but not be limited to, public hearings, at least one of which must be conducted at a location within the city limits west of Interstate 35 and at least one which must be conducted at a location within the city limits east of Interstate 35."

I said earlier there needed to be two language changes to this section of the charter. The second one, I hope is obvious. Following the first successful compensation alteration, the charter language should be amended to delete the reference to the $200 a month to the mayor and the $100 monthly stipend to other council members.

Now to the issue of where the city manager should live. As faithful readers might already surmise from my earlier rants on this issue, I think any city employee, any member of the city staff, regardless of his or her position, should enjoy the basic freedom of choice when it comes to deciding where they want their family residence to be located. For the sake of peace, harmony and good sense, I am willing to compromise on this issue and now let’s see if anyone else is willing to do the same.

I now agree with the notion there should be a requirement that the city manager live within the city limits of Kyle. However, I don’t believe this requirement should be embedded in the city’s constitution but, instead, this requirement language should be a part of any and all employment contracts the city extends to any potential city manager candidate. This gives the city council wiggle room. It give council members the space and the ability to make decisions and, if they so desire, to negotiate.

Let me tell you just how ridiculous, just how stupid, the debate on this issue became last night. The council members who opposed any change were arguing from the hypothesis that no potential city manager would ever want to live in Kyle. If you ask them, they will be too stubborn, too blinded, to actually admit, to actually see from what direction they were coming from, but that was it. They began from the assumption that by removing this requirement from the charter, no city manager would ever live in Kyle. And there is absolutely no foundation that could support that point of view. None. Nada.

In fact, I would argue that quite the opposite would be true. I’d be willing to bet that 99 times out of 100, such a clause in an employment contract would not even be an issue, The proposed candidate would accept that language as written, and if everything else met their approval, he or she would soon ensconce himself and his family somewhere within the city limits.

But what about that one in a hundred chance when the candidate says that requirement is a deal-killer? That’s the beauty of this recommendation because it is not a mandate, it is not an ultimatum, — it offers the council the opportunity to consider a number of different options. Option one: The council could decide "We all agree there was not that much separating Candidate A from Candidate B. Candidate A says the residency requirement is a deal killer for him, so lets rescind our offer to Candidate A and extend it to Candidate B." Or the council could decide to go to an Option two: "We really like Candidate A. He is obviously the best choice for the job. Let’s see if we can get Candidate A to agree to concessions in other areas of the contract in return for us removing that residency requirement." And there are many more possible options, and those key words — "many more possible options" — are the important ones, the ones to remember. This doesn’t place the council in an untenable take-it-or-leave-it situation that may very easily wind up forcing them to make a decision that’s not in the overall bests interests of the city and its future.

At any rate, these are the subjects, if not the actual language, the council should be discussing — not the off-topic areas and the false hypotheses that rained down last night. That, to say the least, was embarrassing. That was depressing.

City manager’s proposed budget reduced to three words: streets, water, wastewater

City Manager Scott Sellers formally unveiled today his $84.9 billion budget recommendation for the upcoming fiscal year — a proposal he described as "fantastic" — that contains (as far as I can see) nothing that could be called frivolous, maintains the current property tax rate but does seek a wastewater service rate increase and concentrates on providing the funds necessary to guarantee the city’s water supply, to expand its wastewater capabilities and accelerate street reconstruction and maintenance.

"Kudos to the staff," Mayor Pro Tem Shane Arabie said at the conclusion of Sellers’ presentation. "What was accomplished through this budget, the amount that we can accomplish because of this budget, brings us to another level of sophistication that we’ve reached as an entity and the high level of service that we are providing."

After thanking all the staff members who worked on the budget, and comparing the budget favorably to earlier budget projections for the upcoming year, Sellers said "We have brought forward a budget that is fantastic."

"There’s no better time to live in the city of Kyle than right now," the city manager said. "The quality of life is extremely high, the ability to fund quality-of-life initiatives is there and we are looking to the future in a way we’ve never been able to do in years past. To maintain the level of service that we are in this budget is truly exceptional."

According to my (albeit, unofficial) calculations, $44,137,063 — 51.99 percent of the total budget — will go towards street maintenance, the city’s water supply and wastewater upgrades in the form of new hires, equipment purchases and capital improvements. These unofficial calculations were, admittedly at a glance, seconded by the city manager just prior to his formal presentation to the council.

In that presentation, Sellers said the highlights of his budget recommendation were:

• $84.9 million total proposed budget for all city funds;
• $45.4 million in planned spending on capital (long-term) improvements in FY 2019;
• $7 million dedicated to accelerate Stagecoach Road reconstruction project;
• $19 million for the wastewater treatment plant expansion project construction;
• $1.3 million for new equipment and vehicles;
• $778,000 for 16 new full-time positions — eight in Public Works, three each in Police and Parks and one each in utility billing and information technology;
• $441,511 for technology improvements;
• A $324,201 increase for employee benefits to cover rising health insurance costs as well as merit and longevity pay increases;
• No change in the property tax, water service or storm drainage rates although, according to Sellers presentation, the current property tax rate of $.5416 per $100 of assessed valuation exceeds the rollback rate by just under a penny, .96 of a cent;
• A 10 percent overall increase in the wastewater service rate that will translate into a 3.5 percent increase — around $3.54 per month — in the average household utility bill; and
• A 3.95 percent increase in the solid waste rates to pay for the annual increases included in the city’s contract with TDS

Of the almost $1.24 million earmarked for new equipment, the bulk of it — $994,500 of it or 80.2 percent — will be going to Public Works for such items as two dump trucks, an asphalt zipper, a street sweeper, a broom roller, a tub grinder, two concrete mixers, a trench shoring box and litter abatement equipment. The total also includes $110,000 for a new radio system.

Although the tax rate remains at 54.16 cents, property owners will face higher tax bills because of an 5.47 percent increase in property valuations this year. One piece of good news for residential homeowners is that it appears Kyle’s economic development efforts are producing dividends as the residential share of the total property tax bill fell from 74.36 percent last year to 70.95 percent this year. Although Finance Director Perwez Moheet said immediately following the budget presentation this reduction was not that big a deal, both Arabie and council member Damon Fogley welcomed the change and did say the 3.4 percent drop in the residential share of the total property tax bill was "of major significance."

The city will enter the new fiscal year with a debt of $80.5 million as compared to $85.6 million at the same time last year, according to the city manager’s presentation. However, the city manager cautioned, that figure does not include the $9.5 million in new debt planned for the wastewater treatment plant expansion or the "debt issued and/or planned by ARWA (Alliance Regional Water Authority) for the city’s share of capital expenditures," namely the pipeline required to bring water from the Carrizo Springs Aquifer to Kyle.

Kyle City Council turns into mean, vindictive, petty body

The City has announced a special City Council meeting for 10 a.m. Monday to canvass the results of Saturday’s runoff election. I found that strange when it canvassed the returns from the May election at a regularly scheduled meeting and a regularly scheduled City Council meeting was scheduled for the very next day after this specially called one. Was there a deadline that forced the special meeting? The City Charter states "The City Council shall canvass the returns in accordance to state law." State law (specifically, section 67.003 of the state Election Code) states "each local canvassing authority shall convene to conduct the local canvass at the time set by the canvassing authority's presiding officer not earlier than the eighth day or later than the 11th day after election day." In the case of this most recent Kyle election, that means the canvass must take place between Sunday and June 22. Well, the canvass is probably not going to take place on Father’s Day, which is Sunday, but the next regularly scheduled Council meeting is June 21, so why move it up a day? I posed that question to City spokesperson Kim Hilsenbeck, who received the following reply from Mayor Todd Webster:

"Section 5.12 of the city charter says that a new member elected in a runoff election shall take ‘office’ on the first Tuesday following the day on which the votes for the runoff election are canvassed. For the newly elected council member to participate in the next regular meeting, the Special Meeting had to be called to canvass.

"State law only requires two council members to canvass an election. I believe I have called a special meeting to canvass once before because of timing. I think the reasoning then was so we could meet timelines to hold a runoff.

"I wanted to seat the new council as quickly as possible so that the newly elected member would participate in as many council meetings as possible prior to engaging in the budget process, which begins in July.

"I believe that waiting until July for Mr. (Travis) Mitchell to participate in his first meeting would not have been the best option for us as a city council moving forward with the budget process. We have had more than one runoff resulting in new members being elected. It is my opinion that the budget meetings that took place at that time, including after my election, would have gone more smoothly with the new folks having more experience in how meetings operate and in working with their fellow council members."

All very well and good but it comes across as mean, vindictive and petty. It all could have been handled in a far more dignified that way as well as in a way that would still have allowed Mitchell "to participate in his first meeting" only minutes, not weeks, later than is now planned.

It’s no secret that Diane Hervol, the incumbent Mitchell defeated in the runoff after the two candidates tied the first time around, is not that popular among her colleagues. Council member Damon Fogley came right out and endorsed Mitchell, which he has every right to do, and I’d be willing to bet every dollar I hope to receive the rest of my life that at least four of the remaining council members who voted in the runoff voted for Mitchell, which, of course, they also have every right to do. But that is the reason why the council is treating her in the way it is now comes across as so mean, vindictive and petty. It’s like the rest of the council is showing her the back door and telling her to get out and the sooner the better.

Here’s the way I think it would have been the best way to handle the transition. The council would take the following steps in order as outlined on the agenda:

• With Hervol still a member of the Council, she would be recognized by the rest of the members for her service to the city, not only her six years on the Council, but her tenure on the Planning & Zoning Commission as well as the countless hours she devotes to participating in many civic functions here in Kyle. Hervol would then be given the opportunity to make a farewell address.
• The June 11 vote would be canvassed.
• Mitchell would be sworn in as the new Place 1 City Council member.
• Hervol would ceremoniously relinquish her position on the dias to Mitchell.
• Mitchell would then be given the opportunity to address the meeting during which, among other things, he could offer his thanks to Hervol for her service, congratulate her on the campaign, thank his supporters and briefly state what he hopes to accomplish on the Council.
• Then the rest of the council meeting could proceed, beginning with the Public Comments section of the agenda, with Mitchell as an active member of the Council.

To be fair, I had a telephone conversation with Mayor Webster about my concerns on the possible public perception of how this transition is being handled and he assured me he was planning to place an item on Tuesday’s agenda recognizing Hervol’s service. (Hilsenbeck later confirmed such an item would appear on the agenda.) He told me the plaque that will be presented to her had already been ordered and was in the process of being engraved even as we spoke.

At least, there’s that.

He also told me it was unfair to blame the entire Council for how this is transpiring, that these decisions were his and his alone.

So there’s that as well. But there’s still the perception of how all this looks and my sincere belief that someone on the council could have spoken up to argue it could have been handled far more, shall I say, diplomatically.

Developers have pulled truck stop request

Final Update: Tuesday's Kyle City Council agenda has been posted and the truck stop request is not on it.

Second update: I now feel comfortable stating for a fact that PGI Investment, the company seeking to locate a truck stop at Yarrington Road and I-35, has pulled from Tuesday’s City Council agenda its request for a zoning change for those 47.7 acres, a change that would have precipitated the construction of the controversial facility.

I feel comfortable because (1) I saw for myself an item council member Daphne Tenorio posted to the Blanco Vista Neighborhood's Facebook page that said: "I just received an email from the City Manager stating the developer of the truck stop has pulled the item indefinitely," (2) because I also saw a copy of an email from that very same city manager, Scott Sellers, sent to members of the Kyle City Council that said "The applicants for the Warehouse Zoning on I-35/Yarrington (future FM 150) have postponed (emphasis mine) their application indefinitely. This item will be noticed before returning to the City Council for a public hearing.", and (3) because I also received confirmation on the withdrawal from council member Diane Hervol.

Back to original post: I am in the process of reaching out to city officials for confirmation of this, but since I first started hearing these rumors after 5 p.m. today, I’m somewhat leery about receiving a prompt reply.

Earlier Update: According to a source who wishes to remain anonymous, council member Damon Fogley posted on a Facebook page that I don’t have access to: "IH-35/Yarrington Road agenda item for warehouse rezoning (truck stop) has been indefinitely (emphasis mine) postponed by the applicant. It will not be on the City Council agenda for Feb. 2."

Resuming original post: Last Tuesday, in front of an overflow crowd of residents, the overwhelming majority of whom wanted the zoning request denied, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 5-2 to do just that. It was expected, however, that the City Council would overturn that decision.
 
To be honest, it would not surprise me at all if these rumors are true and PGI has indeed withdrawn its request. Earlier this week, I wrote an article harshly critical of PGI for its abysmal community relations performance in this matter, for not reaching out to surrounding communities to seek a mutually agreeable compromise on this issue. I’m not going to go so far as to say definitely that PGI has decided to do this, but it would make sense. What comes up when I Google PGI Investments, LL.C., is a homebuilder based in Carlsbad, Calif., near San Diego. It doesn’t make sense, to me at least, that this PGI is the same outfit as the truck stop PGI, because I can’t find any history of the Carlsbad PGI getting involved in deals like this. But, if it is indeed the same company, you would think this company with its background would have a certain amount of empathy for homeowners, and thus be more likely to engage in meaningful negotiations with homeowners and other equity holders in the area.

On this same topic, it is worth nothing that San Marcos Mayor Daniel Guerrero crafted a harshly worded, albeit self-serving, letter Tuesday to Kyle Mayor Todd Webster. Guerrero said the City of San Marcos "does not support the proposed change and does not believe a truck stop at that location (on the Kyle-San Marcos border) is the highest and best use for that property. We also do not find it to be conducive to a positive partnership and regional relationship." So its possible, PGI’s actions, if indeed they have taken place, could have been the result of some pressure applied by San Marcos city officials along with the Greater San Marcos Partnership.

I will update this when and if I learn more. As of this writing (5:37 p.m.), an agenda for Tuesday’s Kyle City Council meeting has not been posted.

City Council caves to NIMBYs

The Kyle City Council, with explanations that, for the most part, if they are to be believed would bring all development in the city to a screeching halt, voted 5-1 last night to deny a request for a townhouse development located only a half a mile from City Hall.

Council member Shane Arabie was the only council member to vote in favor of the zoning request, although Mayor Todd Webster, whose explanation for opposing the measure was the only one that made any sense, seemed to vote no quite reluctantly. When his name was called during the roll call vote, he sat silently for a relatively long time before voting "nay" in way that made his vote sound more like that last name of this comedian whom I remember from the old Steve Allen Sunday night television show. Council member Daphne Tenorio did not attend last night’s meeting.

But, at least, Mayor Webster’s opposition seemed to make some sense. He voiced concern over the cost that would need to be borne by the city to upgrade what are now comparatively narrow streets near the site — specifically Cockerham, and possibly even Live Oak and Porter streets — upgrades that would be required to handle the traffic from the development that could potentially have been the site of 150 townhomes.

Here’s the rub, however. Without any zoning changes whatsoever, at least 90 single family homes could be located on the property and Planning Director Howard Koontz cited studies that proved that single family residences generate three times as many car trips as townhomes do. In addition, the parcel of land south of the property in question last night is already zoned for townhomes so they could be built there without needing any new zoning requests and that property is a lot closer to Cockerham and Porter streets than the ones under discussion last night.

Webster seemed to realize this and it was this dilemma, I am convinced, that resulted in his hesitancy in announcing his vote.

The other reasons given by council members, however, bordered on the goofy, none more than the one offered during the debate by council member Damon Fogley who said he opposed the rezoning because he didn’t want to add any more residential areas to the city’s tax rolls when homeowners currently bear the major burden of city property taxes. Perhaps he simply didn’t grasp that the lots already had residential zoning attached to them and the question before the council was simply whether to change the type of residential zoning. But, to be honest, I think that was Fogley’s excuse for casting a no vote, not his reason. The proof of that will come the next time a big developer comes along with a project to develop a major subdivision on land presently zoned agricultural. I’m betting Fogley will be tugging at his leash to approve it even if it will be far less sustainable than the issue on the table last night.

Mayor Pro Tem David Wilson along with council members Diane Hervol and Becky Selbera did not voice a reason for voting against the measure during the debate, so I had to approach them for their reasons at the conclusion on the council’s meeting. By that time, Selbera had bailed, but Hervol told me she opposed the development because "of the effects it will have on our wastewater, flood control and roads. The effect it’s going to have on our wastewater plant is very crucial." That’s possibly very well true, but it is also true for every single new development that plans to come to the city of Kyle. New developments inherently will have an effect "on our wastewater, flood control and roads." So, if she really believes what she was telling me, she will want all development in the city to stop. So, just to clarify, I asked her specifically if it was only the cost of needed infrastructure improvements in the immediate area that concerned her, She replied: "We’re already well on our way to improving the wastewater treatment plant, but the impact (of this development) concerns me." Again, it will be interesting to see if she voices similar concerns for any other proposed new developments within the city limits.

Wilson said he voted against because of "infrastructure in that area and safety. We don’t have the infrastructure to handle it and we already have people from new subdivisions cutting through on those roads." But, as mentioned earlier, development could proceed on the property without any zoning changes that would precipitate far more traffic.

Let’s be honest here. The only reason this zoning wasn’t approved was because the council withered in the face of the vocal opposition of a few selfish NIMBY residents of an adjacent subdivision who are opposed to any change and are hoping this piece of property in downtown Kyle will stay undeveloped forever. The problem is so few people vote in Kyle city elections, a small handful of irate, self-centered residents such as these could possibly tip an election and that scares the bejeezus out of these entrenched power-mad politicians who desperately want to hang on to their fiefdoms.

Arabie wisely recognized this fact when he said the residents of the Silverado subdivision may rue the day they opposed this development when they suddenly find themselves rubbing shoulders with a big warehouse development on the property that could have contained some nice, attractive townhomes.

The applicant himself, whose name I failed to capture, was stunned by the outcome. The opposition from the NIMBYs was just as loud — perhaps even louder — at the most recent Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, yet those commissioners displayed some backbone and ultimately unanimously approved the rezoning of the larger of the two parcels in question. The applicant said he had no idea what his next steps would be. "I am just going to have to sit back and regroup," he told me outside the council chambers.

For what it’s worth, here’s what I would do if I was in his shoes. Like I said, two parcels of land were proposed to be rezoned from single family residential to townhome residential. One of the parcels was 1.3 acres, the second was 14.083 acres. The council only voted on the smaller parcel; the applicant pulled his application on the larger one before council could vote on it. The applicant must now wait one year to apply for the same zoning change again on the 1.3 acres. However, he doesn’t have to wait at all on the much larger parcel.

I would begin holding small, informal meetings with residents of the Silverado subdivision to see what kind of compromises would need to be made to make them more favorable to the development. The major concern voiced by the NIMBYs was the increased amount of traffic that would flow through their subdivision. There is a small nub of a street, the name of which I can’t determine, located off San Felipe Drive between Salado and Remington drives that, at the present time, is the only visible access to the property. That is the route the NIMBYs voiced concern about – that all traffic to and from the subdivision would have to go down that nub and, thus, wind through Silverado. The applicant plans to construct roads to the southwest connecting to Cockerham and perhaps one to Live Oak, which he envisions as the main access to the site. One compromise I would seriously consider would be to construct a blockade that would prohibit traffic from entering Silverado from the townhome development.

The second thing I would present to the homeowners would be studies which prove that such a development adjacent to their property will actually increase their property values. There are plenty such studies to draw from.

The third thing I would do would be to present drawings and models to show the homeowners exactly what the proposed development would look like when it was finished, complete with all the additional roadways. Which brings me back to that 1.3 acres that can’t be rezoned residential townhome for at least another year. Work with the city to determine exactly what use he could do with that acreage. I’m thinking of a downtown 1.3-acre community leash-free dog park, complete with a splash pond. To me, that would be a wonderful addition for that part of downtown. I say "community"dog park because it would be open to all pet owners, not just those who live in the townhome development.

Fourth, as I presented all these ideas to the those NIMBYs in Silverado and others near the property, I would ask them to sign a petition indicating they favor the proposal under the compromises, the studies and the plans that I have displayed with them.

Fifth, and this could be the most difficult of all, I would try to form a PID (one designed to be used the way PIDs are envisioned to be used) whose boundaries would begin at the edge of Silverado, and stretch all the way to Rebel Drive that could be used to offset much of the cost of any needed infrastructure improvements.

And then I would bring all that back to City Council and again ask for the residential townhome zoning on only the 14.083 acres that was not voted on last night.

But that’s me.

In other action last night, the city council:

• Heard from Kay Johnson, chair of the Kyle Depot Board, with an update on the Kyle Visitor Center and Museum, which will be located in the depot. She said "a soft opening of this important, historical building" is planned for Saturday, Jan. 23, from 10 a.m. to noon. "We are placing period furniture pieces into the train master’s office next week and preparing displays for our exhibition panels." She said an audio-visual system is being installed that, among other things, "will allow an announcer to be distinctly heard that the next train to San Antonio should be ready to board within in the hour." She also said the Hays County Historical Society is providing copies of a book detailing the history of Kyle and a book signing will be part of the soft opening ceremonies. The proceeds from the sale of the book will be "donated to the continued upkeep of this magnificent depot." She informed the council a formal "grand" reopening of the depot will be announced "at a later date."
• Listened to the details of what was labeled a Transportation Plan but what was actually nothing more than a road construction plan whose brain-numbing, head-scratching conclusion was that the No. 1 road construction priority for Kyle was a two-lane divided Beebee Road, with the division being either a median or a center turn lane, between I-35 and State Highway 21, a project the plan’s presenters estimate would cost $57 million or more than 1.5 times the cost of all the city’s five current road bond projects. And that’s in 2016 dollars — no telling how much more expensive this would be if and when the city actually decided to undertake the project. To be fair, these guys said the city should only be on the hook for $17.5 million, but somehow we would have to sweet talk the county into coughing up the other $39.5 million. Hey, I travel that stretch of road a lot, for reasons I won’t go into here, but I also travel the far more congested 1626 between here and Manchaca quite regularly and, what with the plans to extend the 45 Tollway from the southern tip of Mopac in Austin to 1626 near the Hays County line, to me the area’s No. 1 priority is the widening of 1626 between 2770 and 967. Once that tollway link is complete, 1626 will compete with I-35 as the main conveyor of automobiles to and from Kyle and Southwest Austin. And that project should be entirely on the county’s tab. Hopefully, one day the city will quit wasting taxpayer money on road construction plans mislabeled as transportation plans and actually find someone willing to develop a comprehensive transportation plan. And why, pray tell me, are we getting different plans from CAMPO and this outfit, Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam? (Actually, I know the answer: LAN employees donate heavily to city council election campaigns.)
• Approved a request from the Hampton Inn to build a hotel next to the Hays Surgery Center that would exceed the 45-foot height limit for buildings in that zoning. The Hampton’s plans call for it to be 59 feet high.
• Unanimously granted a waiver to a proposed Sonic Drive In that allows it to build more parking spaces than its specified in the city’s code. After all, the Sonic is, as the name suggests, a drive-in and most of its patrons consume their food in their cars and not inside the restaurant. And if you don’t believe me on this, just look at all those stupid Sonic television commercials that always show the two friendly jerks in their car at the restaurant.
• Went through a series of shenanigans that allowed for ex-officio members on city boards and commissions, the first of which were four such members named to the Economic Development & Tourism Board. Mayor Webster cast the lone vote against the first in the series of shenanigans when he learned the new rule applied to all boards and commissions and not just to the Economic Development & Tourism Board.
• Unanimously approved an agreement that will allow the Kyle Police Department to install license plate recognition products in three department vehicles. These products would give police officers the ability to spot and stop cars with outstanding warrants for unpaid fines on already adjudicated traffic violations. It would also allow the drivers of such vehicles the opportunity to pay that outstanding fine on the spot with a credit card. Police Chief Jeff Barnett told me after the item was approved that the city is currently looking at between $4 and $5 million in outstanding such fines owed to the city. That’s almost enough to fund 25 percent of the head-scratching, brain-numbing Beebee Road boondoggle.

I am not a doctor, but I’ve seen actors play them on TV

For personal reasons I chose not to attend Tuesday’s final City Council meeting of the year, but I spent much of today going over the proceedings courtesy of the city’s Granicus system and several items jumped out at me.


ZERO ON ZERO
Rick Fraumann, director of sales for Texas Disposal System, briefed the council on the current state of the city’s contract with TDS, one of the few highly respected private waste haulers operating these days. I was struck by the fact that not one single council member had any concerns about what’s going to happen in the future and, even more important, the city’s role in determining that future.

Fraumann told the council the TDS landfill, which is located just north of the 45 Toll Road on the corner of Carl Road and Highway 1327, has approximately 25 years of life remaining. I guess the seven members of the Council figure they won’t be in any positions of authority a quarter of a century from now. Either that or they’re thinking that’s just too far in the future for them to think about. But it’s that type of thought processes that trouble me about where this city is heading. We are only dealing with the present or, at most, five years out, and are paying absolutely no regard to our long-term future. I was stunned by the fact that no one asked Fraumann whether TDS officials were planning for life after the closing of its landfill. No one asked if TDS was considering installing a bioreactor to possibly extend the life of the landfill,

But most shocking of all, no one on the council even mentioned the idea of the city instituting a zero waste diversion plan, a plan that would divert virtually all materials from landfills and incinerators. I’m not sure complete waste diversion is feasible — Austin’s plan calls for an 80 percent diversion rate by the year 2040, interestingly enough the year the TDS landfill is set for closing. But European cities are way ahead of us on this. Capannori, Italy, for instance, has earned enough from selling its former "garbage" to recycling plants that its zero waste scheme (now at more than 80 percent diversion) is self-sufficient, and even saved the local city council more than $2.7 million in 2009. The city has plowed that savings back into further waste-reduction efforts. Capannori is likely to achieve zero waste by 2020, which is an overall European Union goal.

So others believe it can be done. The largest landfill in the state of Texas is the McCommas Bluff Landfill, operated by the City of Dallas and, in addition to installing a bioreactor at the landfill in 2008, the city is taking additional steps to convert the landfill into a recycling center, thus achieving close to a 100 percent diversion rate, hopefully, according to the city’s timetable, around 2030, which is 10 years before the expiration date of the TDS landfill.

So there are cities, even here in Texas, even here in Central Texas, that are concerned about the future, particularly the environmental future. I’m disappointed that Kyle doesn’t seem to be one of them. Instead the concerns here seemed to be:

Can we have recycling pickup three times a month and compost pickup only once? (Council member Damon Fogley)

Can we institute a "pay as you throw" system, which at least has a short-term diversion component but is strictly voluntary. (Council member Daphne Tenorio) Such a billing system encourages recycling and composting by charging customers according to the amount of garbage collected from their homes.

Instead of waiting for once-a-year bulk pickup, why can’t customers haul their own bulky items to the landfill? (Mayor Todd Webster). I was somewhat shocked that Fraumann didn’t address this more directly. According to TDS’s website, there is a "Citizens Convenience Center" designed just for that purpose at the landfill, a fact Fraumann never mentioned.


SHOP LOCAL
From what I gather by my frequent visits to Facebook, there is a real effort here to encourage Kyle consumers to spend their money (and the sales taxes that go along with it) in stores and with businesses located right here within the city limits. Many of these Facebook postings are made by City Council members.

I thought about that when the Council approved an item to pay Sewer Services of Texas, an outfit out of Conroe, Texas, $21,000 to clean debris, gravel and grit clogging digestors at the city’s wastewater treatment plant. And my thought was this: "Why isn’t there a company closer to home that can provide this kind of service?" Sure, Conroe (2012 population estimated at 61,533) is a little bigger than Kyle, but it seems to me that’s the kind of business that could operate successfully in Kyle and I’m wondering what our business development folks are doing to encourage those kind of start-ups here. I am also wondering how much additional weight the city gives to local businesses when it comes to awarding contracts. I’m hoping it’s considerable. I have asked those types of questions of the city and in return I received a copy of the city’s Purchasing Manual. Truth be told: I haven’t had the opportunity to go through it yet.


RETURN WITH US NOW TO THOSE GOLDEN DAYS OF YESTERYEAR...
City Manager Scott Sellers briefed the council on the effects Open Carry laws will have on operations within Kyle City Hall. He said the city is awaiting an opinion from the Attorney General (I’m assuming he means the AG’s office since the Attorney General hisownself is currently dealing with criminal charges filed against him) on whether, because City Hall also acts as a municipal court, the city is allowed to protect itself from the increasing number of deranged madmen conducting mass shooting sprees, and prohibit people packing heat from entering the building. The law specifically says when meetings that fall under the jurisdiction of the Texas Open Meetings Act or Municipal Court sessions are taking place, no gun-toting individuals will be allowed entry into the building as long as "No guns allowed" signs are posted. The law also says guns are prohibited in buildings in which staff members that support the court are employed. In larger cities, which have their own municipal court buildings, this is not an issue — guns are simply verboten in those. But the issue is multi-use buildings like we have here. According to City Attorney Frank Garza, Gov. Greg Abbott says "yes" as long as a court is not in session. But Garza added "the governor was reminded he is no longer the attorney general and could not interpret the law." He said the Texas Municipal League has informed him the attorney general’s opinion on the matter is expected next month.

It appears Sellers expects the AG to rule the way the NRA wants him to, so he asked the council to amend "our personnel policy to allow the city staff to carry in this facility." I mean, city staff needs to protect themselves against upset pistol-packing citizens, right? Why do I think this can only end badly?

In other action, the council:

• Approved the nominations of Meghan Murphy, Luke Jackson, Dalton Tristan, Destinee Cabrera and Nate McHale to the Kyle Area Youth Advisory Council. No additional information was provided about the nominees, like where they attend school, their respective ages, but I’m sure they are all fine young adults.
• Gave final approval to a zoning change along I-35 between Kohler’s Crossing and Kyle Parkway that would permit the construction of an adult book store or a strip club at the location, although the developer swears he only wants to erect a far-less-profitable self storage facility there.
• At the suggestion of council member Tenorio, discussed the notion of hiring another person to help with billing in the Water Utility Department. Council member Shane Arabie argued the addition could almost pay for itself in increasing the collection of accounts receivable but City Manager Scott Sellers asked the council to wait and measure efficiencies the city was about to put into place and then determine during the fiscal year 2016-17 budget discussions whether such an addition was warranted.
• Gave significant relief to homeowners who are part of the Bunton Creek Public Improvement District, approving an ordinance that reduces their PID assessment from $2,995 payable over a 30-year period (about $190 a year, including interest) to $1,850 over 20-years ($148.45 annually), Those who already paid the entire higher assessment will be given a refund. In addition, all the penalties assessed homeowners for non-payment under the old rules have been expunged. Like the song says, "It’s just like starting over."

The sad, tragic tale of a spineless lackey

So much for independence.

Two weeks ago, District 5 City Councilman Damon Fogley actually stood up to Mayor Todd Webster and voted against rezoning a small parcel of land located near the corner of Ranch Road 150 and Lehman Road from multi-family to warehouse. The main argument against this rezoning is that it ran contrary to the city’s Comprehensive Plan. (There was also the fear the warehouse zoning allows for a sexually oriented business to be located on the site.)

But, all along, there was something strange and confusing about Fogley’s vote. The land in question was divided into two sections. A developer, Robert W. McDonald, sought to rezone the land, which was zoned for apartments. He had two items on the Oct. 7 Council agenda. The first would rezone 13.5 acres of that land to allow him to build duplexes on the property. The second would rezone the remaining 3.1 acres to allow for the warehouses.

Here’s where things got confusing, at least in Fogley’s mind. He asked to recuse himself from the first vote (although he didn’t recuse himself — I get the impression he either doesn’t know how to recuse himself or he has been given bad advice on the proper way to recuse oneself. Instead, he simply didn’t vote on the issue), because, according to the meeting’s minutes "this property is adjacent to his own." Which, incidentally does not seem to be true. But then he voted on the warehouse issue which, as I said earlier, is part of the exact same property Fogley claimed earlier "is adjacent to his own."

So there’s that.

But that’s not where this story ends. Much to Webster’s astonishment, Fogley sided with the pro-neighborhood duo on the council, District 1 Councilmember Diane Hervol and District 6's Daphne Tenorio and against the pro-developer duo of Mayor Webster and Mayor Pro Tem David Wilson in voting against the rezoning. (The two other pro-developer councilmembers District 2's Becky Selbera and District 3's Shane Arabie missed this most recent meeting.)

Item 14 of Tuesday’s agenda, requested by Fogley, calls for the reconsideration of the warehouse rezoning vote. That’s sad.

Yesterday I asked Fogley why he is backtracking on his earlier stance, but, obviously, I never received a reply. I mean, how does someone gracefully say "I am doing this because I am a coward."

So if he won’t tell me the reasons, I can only put two and two together and come up with my own logical explanation. And that is Da Mayor took Fogley to the woodshed, scolded him like some truant school child and told him in no uncertain terms "I got you elected to this council, so now you will only vote the way I want you to vote." And being the spineless lackey that he is, Fogley meekly replied "Yes, sir. Whatever you say, sir. How can I atone for my miserable transgression, sir?"

Only someone from the majority side of a vote can request a reconsideration of that vote. So Webster, with Wilson probably guarding the door of the toolshed, told Fogley in no uncertain terms what was needed to right this terrible wrong.

So now we have Item 14 on Tuesday’s agenda, an item to give the developer what he wants at the expense of the neighborhood in which he wants to stick his warehouses.

Which brings up an interesting point: Why go to all the trouble and all the expense to formulate a Comprehensive Plan if the Planning & Zoning Commission and a majority of the City Council are either going to outright ignore or blatantly defile it?

This whole mess also reminds me of another phenomena and that is the total lack of interest in the public of the political processes in Kyle. This was reinforced recently by the San Marcos-Kyle-Buda edition of the Community Impact newspaper which revealed the voting percentages for municipal elections in San Marcos and Buda are a whopping 10 times higher than they are in Kyle. How do you explain this discrepancy? One obvious reason is that San Marcos and Buda are smart enough to hold their municipal elections in November, not in May, as Kyle does. But there’s something else, something far more troubling. I have spoken to Kyle residents at H-E-B, Wal-Mart, Lowe’s, Walgreens, Starbucks, Applebees and what they have told me is that their interests are completely ignored by those in power at Kyle City Hall, so what’s the use of voting — it’s not going to change anything.

And the sad, tragic tale of one spineless lackey on the City Council just reinforces how these people feel.

As expected, TxDOT kills roundabout

 (Updated Thursday, Aug. 3 at 1 p.m.)
 In the second paragraph of this original article I wrote "I have reached out to the city for additional information and city spokesman Kim Hilsenbeck has promised to get back with me before this day is done. I will update this article when I receive that information." Ms. Hilsenbeck did timely share with me the short, terse letter the city received from Victor Vargas, an area engineer with TxDOT's South Travis Area Office in Austin. The two sentence letter did not completely close the roundabout door (presumably it could be reopened if the speed limit on Kyle Parkway was reduced dramatically). However, the letter opened with the simple, declarative sentence: "As discussed earlier TxDOT will proceed with issuance of work order to install a signal at subject intersection." So assume that by this time next year, a traffic light, not a roundabout, will be in place at Kyle Parkway and Kohlers Crossing.

One other thing worth noting: In a social media posting, one rather ill-informed city council member claimed "TxDOT withdrew funding" for the roundabout, which of course, is obviously untrue since TxDOT never offered any funds for a roundabout that could have subsequently been withdrawn. The council member seems to be suggest TxDOT reneged on a promise or a deal and that certainly is not the case.

(Original Post)
TxDOT has put the kibosh on the idea of a roundabout at Kohlers Crossing and Kyle Parkway, which is about as newsworthy as reporting no one drowned again last night in the pond at the northwest corner of that intersection.

Mayor Todd Webster announced the death during last nights’ council meeting in response to a citizen who expressed fear that money for constructing the roundabout could be mysteriously hidden in a secret city fund. I have reached out to the city for additional information and city spokesman Kim Hilsenbeck has promised to get back with me before this day is done. I will update this article when I receive that information.

What would have been a shocker and news that would have deserved huge headlines would be if TxDOT had approved the idea. My only question is why it took this long for the agency the nail the coffin shut on this plan. My guess is that the folks in the TxDOT offices have been laughing so hard that idiots in Kyle were actually seriously advocating this idea that they wanted to make sure they were in complete control of their faculties before fashioning a serious response.


I’ll be the first to admit it when I’m wrong
My mention of the roundabout’s death on Facebook last night prompted this snarly reply today from Council Member Damon Fogley: "Let me guess you are a traffic engineer too pete" (sic)

The truth is I was an early advocate of the roundabout. As someone who has driven extensively throughout the United Kingdom as well as all over the European continent, I am very familiar with the concept of roundabouts and am actually a big fan of them. In England I encountered a number of roundabouts that involved as many as eight roads coming together. It took a day or two to learn how to navigate these properly, but once I did I found they actually promoted traffic flow.

Based on this experience, I approached assistant city manager James Earp during a sparsely attended traffic seminar late last year and asked him if anyone had ever considered a roundabout at Kohlers and the parkway. I did not know at the time he was the area’s foremost advocate of roundabouts. He greeted my suggestion with devotion bordering on adoration and within a few days had provided me all kinds of information on roundabouts, which I eventually plowed through.

About six months ago, I was enjoying a late afternoon respite in the backyard of a prominent Kyle citizen who also happened to be a traffic manager and someone who has supervised his fair share of roundabout installations. I mentioned the idea of a roundabout at Kohlers and the parkway and he told me a roundabout there was impossible simply because of the 60 mile an hour speed limit on the parkway. That was the first time I had heard that, so I began bugging traffic and civil engineers throughout the state of Texas — more than 50 of them, as it turned out — and all but one of them told me the same thing: You can’t install a roundabout in a road where the speed limit is greater than 55 miles an hour and the overwhelming majority told me the maximum speed limit for a road with a roundabout is 45 miles an hour. The one who said something different said, yes, a roundabout could be placed at that intersection but it would have to be at least a mile in diameter. I knew that was never going to happen.

Which led me to the conclusion that I was wrong about my original advocacy of that roundabout and I am here admitting I was wrong.

Hey, I’m still a big fan of roundabouts. But I also have been around long enough that a solution to one traffic situation might not work in all traffic situations, just like a band-aid is not going to stop the bleeding of all wounds. And when those who make their living solving these types of problems all tell me the same thing, I’m going to have to admit I was wrong in my original beliefs.

So, the direct answer to the honorable council member is "No, I’m not a traffic engineer, but, unlike too many of our elected officials in Kyle, I do have an open mind which makes me willing and capable of changing my opinion when all the experts tell me my original opinion was wrong."

City wants to regulate where you park your pickup

Is this a public safety problem?

The City Council is scheduled to introduce tonight and perhaps even debate a proposed ordinance to prohibit the parking of certain vehicles on residential city streets, including a pickup truck with a compartment in the bed holding tools . The city claims the ordinance is "necessary to maintain the safety, governance and good order of the city." because, as well all know, Bloods, Crips and members of Mexican cartels may very well be hiding out along with those tools in the pickup truck.

Yes, this is much more of decorative issue than it is a public safety issue — there are those who think it just doesn’t look good to have a camper parked on subdivision streets. However, they will find a way to make it a public safety issue by saying those vehicles restrict the view of motorists from seeing what might be parked directly behind that camper and we all know how important than can be.

Could this be barred from parking?

The ordinance could be interpreted to prohibit the parking of Jeep Wranglers, a popular vehicle for using off highway, from city streets as well as pickups. Even though I seriously doubt the local gendarmes are going to tow away a Jeep Wrangler parked along a residential curb, someone might be able to argue if Jeep Wranglers are excused, then the entire ordinance is faulty. But that’s something for a shrewd attorney and the courts to haggle over if and when the proposed ordinance is actually passed.

The proposed ordinance, sought by council member Damon Fogley, states "no person shall park or leave standing any trailers, utility trailers, recreational vehicles, campers, boats, watercraft, snowmobiles, off highway vehicles (OHVs), recreational vehicles, structures, equipment, or apparatuses on a city street, road or public right-of-way within a residential district in the city." It’s that "apparatuses" bit that causes me some concern. The ordinance defines "Apparatus" as "a group or combination of instruments, machinery, tools, materials, etc." What in heaven’s name does that mean? That’s why I’m saying a pickup truck used by most contractors could be among the vehicles prohibited.

The ordinance also states "This does not apply to trash, recycling, compost receptacles used or regulated by the City or other contracted disposal service when placed overnight," as if the city had been plagued by hundreds of garbage trucks parked on residential streets of late.

There is a public hearing attached to this agenda item so if you feel strongly about it one way or another, tonight at City Hall would be the best time to state your case.

City raises property tax 10.6 percent above the cost of road bonds

There are many ways at looking at city finances and tax increases and how much property tax is in masked money or in real money. The truth of the matter here is that, in real money, Kyle property taxes are going to catapult 26.2 percent higher than last year, although 15.6 percent of that increase will be because voters approved a $13 million road bond package two years ago, so expect to pay an extra 7.6 cents per $100 property valuation every year for the next 20 years to pay for those five road improvements.

Here’s how to look at the budget in terms of real money, i.e., the actual dollars and cents coming out of the bank accounts of Kyle property owners. If you wanted the city to provide exactly the same service in the upcoming fiscal year as they are doing in this one, the property tax rate would be, according to figures presented to the city council this morning by Finance Director Perwez A. Moheet, 48.71 cents per $100 valuation. That’s lower than the current 53.83 cents rate because the city’s income will increase this year through additional sales tax revenues and higher property valuations. Moheet also said that it will cost taxpayers 7.63 cents per $100 valuation per year over the next 20 years to pay for the 2013 road bond package. However, the estimated property tax rate for this year is going to be very close to 61.46 cents which, of course, is 5.12 cents more than what the same level of service plus the road bonds would cost.

Not that the 5.12 cents isn’t justified. Given the level of service the city provides, it desperately needs to improve its game, although I still wish the proposed new city charter had provided for an internal auditor to monitor the city’s service efficiencies. To me, 61.46 cents seems a high price tag for the level of service residents receive but that also could be because the ratio of individually owned property to commercial property is at an obscene level in Kyle: 85 to 15, according to a survey conducted by Community Impact. (That ratio in Buda is 72 to 28 and its property tax is 29.78 cents per $100 valuation. In San Marcos, it’s a 53-47 percent ratio with a property tax of 53.02 cents.)

So what is that 5.12 cents per $100 valuation extra in Kyle going to be used for?. Well, for starters, about 21.5 FTEs will be added to the city’s payroll, including four new police officers. FTE stands for Full Time Equivalent, but does not necessarily translate into the number of people hired. For example, two part-time workers equals one full-time and City Manager Scott Sellers’s proposed budget adds about 10 part-time employees and converts one parks administrative assistant from a part-time position to a full-time position. In addition, an FTE is a position, not a person. In other words, the city may create a position (an FTE) and fund it, but not hire anyone to fill that position.

But enough of that confusion. Sellers’s original proposal called for 22.5 FTEs, but one of those positions, a division manager of street maintenance paying $85,235 per annum, was axed in a motion by council member Daphne Tenorio, seconded by Damon Fogley and approved unanimously by the council to pay for much needed protective equipment, chiefly breathing apparatus, for firefighters and a laptop for the new code enforcement officers. At the urging of Mayor Todd Webster, $100,000 was added to the budget to give the iconic downtown water tower a fresh coat of paint and, as recommended by council member Becky Selberra, $15,000 was added for a "Rail Crossing Quiet Zone Assessment Study." That money was deducted from $1,529,049 in seed money to start a fund that would keep up with equipment, fleet and facility replacement and repair.

All seven city council members voted in favor of considering the 61.46 cent tax rate at its Wednesday, Aug. 19, special called meeting, which, technically, is not exactly the same thing as approving that rate. However, I’m thinking it’s just a formality. It may be that when the rubber meets the need-to-be-reconstructed road, a few council members, especially those up for re-election next year, may not want to be on record as voting for a hefty tax increase when the matter is considered Aug. 19,but the wheels on which that rubber is fitted will have been greased enough so that it will pass.

After the meeting was over, I asked four council members — Mayor Pro Tem David Wilson, Shane Arabie, Diane Hervol and Tenorio (I wanted to ask Mayor Webster, but he refuses, albeit somewhat politely, to talk with me about anything) — whether they would ever consider instituting a stormwater fee that might help replace some property taxes as an income source. Now, I realize, a fee is actually a tax hiding under a different name, but a stormwater fee is usually assessed in proportion to the amount of impervious surface on a particular piece of property. In a home, that might be a driveway and a patio, but for an H-E-B or a Wal-Mart we're talking about a gigantic, honkin’ parking lot so those fees fall more heavily on the commercial property owners and help relieve some of the burden being borne in Kyle by homeowners.

Council voices approval of costly, controversial roundabout

In spite of its $600,000 price tag and the overwhelming opposition to it by residents, particularly those who live close by, the City Council Tuesday evening directed the staff to prepare a resolution that would put the city on record as supporting the construction of a roundabout at Kyle Parkway and Kohlers Crossing.

Of course, last night’s action doesn’t mean squat. It has absolutely no bearing on whether a roundabout will ever be constructed at the intersection. All it means, if the resolution drafted by the staff is ultimately passed by the council, is that the city will be on record as telling the Texas Department of Transportation it favors installing a roundabout at the location.

The council’s direction to staff came without an official vote, just a mention by Mayor Todd Webster that he felt the consensus of the council leaned to favoring a roundabout.

According to Assistant City Manager James Earp, TxDOT is willing to foot the bill ($250,000, according to Earp) to install a traffic signal at that intersection. He estimated a roundabout would cost about $850,000, but he also guessed TxDOT would contribute the $250,000 traffic light cost to the project, leaving the city to come up with the remaining $600,000. This came a couple of hours before the council hosted a workshop in which council members were told it would cost the city $18 million a year over the next 30 years to pay for the road projects called for in its Transportation Master Plan.

Of course those are capital projects and would be paid for by putting the city more in debt. Because of extremely poor planning, Kyle already has the highest property tax rate of any city in Hays County and I’m guessing that rate will jump about three cents when the city manager unveils his FY 2015-16 budget next week. The problem is, because of that poor planning, the burden of paying that debt falls way too heavily on individual homeowners and asking them to shoulder more of that responsibility is absolutely unconscionable. The city needs to attract far more businesses to relieve homeowners of some of this taxpaying burden before it goes on these types of spending sprees.

Not only that, while I am a big fan of roundabouts in general, I am not convinced that a roundabout at that intersection is the best idea.

Earp is also a big fan of roundabouts, but he is one of those city officials who say that since a particular solution solved a particular problem a number of different times, that same solution will work every time. That can be a dangerous assumption, especially when it comes to city planning. Earp presented a nifty slide show illustrating the benefits, particularly the safety benefits, of roundabouts, but not one of those slides, not a single one of his examples, was illustrative of the situation at Kyle Parkway and Kohlers Crossing.

For one thing, the speed limit on that section of Kyle Parkway is 60 miles an hour and I’ve never seen a roundabout on a stretch of highway where the speed limit is 60 miles an hour. That doesn’t mean there isn’t one somewhere on this planet, but I doubt if there is one at an intersection that closely resembles the configuration at Kyle Parkway at Kohlers. Usually roundabouts are found at intersections that closely mirror each other; i.e. a four-lane undivided road that intersects another four-lane undivided road, a 40-mile-an-hour road that intersects another 40-mile-an hour road. Here, however, you have a four-lane road with a significant median intersecting a four-lane road with a narrower median and a road with a 60-mile-an hour speed limit intersecting one with marked at 45 mph.

Earp offered a slide that indicated studies suggest that a car traveling a 60 miles an hour will slow to under 20 miles an hour at a roundabout. But that study was done on a two-lane road and I doubt if it was done in Texas where drivers will hope the road ices over in winter so they can slide their pickups all around the circle at crazy speeds. And why create an obstacle on a 60-mile-an-hour highway that slows vehicles to under 20 mph? That makes no sense. Why not construct an overpass at the location to really keep traffic flowing along Kyle Parkway? Would an overpass cost significantly more than a roundabout? There is no way of knowing because, in typical fashion, instead of trying to find the best solution to a particular problem, Kyle officials only considered two alternatives: traffic light or roundabout. But it seems to me an overpass would be the best traffic-management solution.

But we’ll never know that because, again in typical Kyle poor planning mode, the city waited until the last minute to take any action at all on this. According to Earp, TxDot needs to have an answer from the city on the plans for this intersection by the end of this month or sometime next month at the absolute latest.

There is also the fact, as mentioned Tuesday night by both Mayor Pro Tem David Wilson and council member Diane Hervol, that the majority of Kyle residents don’t want a roundabout at that particular location. And if the internet message boards hosted by Plum Creek residents are any indication, those individuals who live closest to the intersection are overwhelmingly against it. Now, none of those residents came to City Hall Tuesday night; the only ones who did appear were those who favored roundabouts, including two members of the Planning & Zoning Commission, Mike Wilson and Dan Ryan. But even these two gentlemen spoke in favor of the theory of roundabouts, but never addressed the actual situation at Kyle Parkway and Kohlers.

As far as the cost, Earp justified the $600,000 cost of the roundabout by saying the city would have to bear the cost of maintaining the traffic signal which would be higher than maintaining a roundabout. Council member Damon Fogley asked the perfectly logical question of how long would it take for the traffic light maintenance costs to reach the $600,000 expense of the roundabout and Earp responded with a tapdance that would have made Fred Astaire jealous.

There are plenty of potentially good locations for roundabouts in the Kyle area: at the intersections of Center and Rebel, Center and Old Stagecoach Road, RR 150 and 2770. And someone please explain to me why a roundabout should be located at Kyle Parkway and Kohlers, but not at Kyle Parkway and 2770, which is really the official city portal on the parkway. The answer. of course, is because the parkway shrinks from a four-lane, widely divided road to a two-lane undivided one north of 2770, but, as I mentioned earlier, you also have a road mismatch at the Parkway and Kohlers.

This just seems to be another example of doing something not because it’s the right thing to do, but because the fix is in.

Unlike all men, all PIDs are not created equal

What I am about to impart is going to come across to many as cruel and condescending so if you interpret it that way, let me apologize out the outset. There is a discussion currently taking place on Facebook among former council member Tammy Swaton, current council member Damon Fogley, Lila Knight, who has probably forgotten more about government than the first two individuals will ever know, and others on the subject of PIDs.

Swaton and Fogley are both at a distinct disadvantage here. Like many of the top officials in this city they are a pair of unsophisticated country bumpkins who have been sold a bill of goods by a corporation that exists for one purpose only – to profit from the creation of PIDs, especially PIDs created under their terms. These slickers sold our local folks a Chevrolet by convincing them it was a Mercedes. But, then, that’s exactly how confidence men operate. Don’t ever let the fish know he’s been hooked.

Do other cities use PIDs? Certainly they do. But it’s going to be difficult to find two PIDs that are constructed exactly alike. So to argue, like Fogley and Swaton are, that since many other cities use PIDs, the notion that our city leaders, by introducing PIDs, have done a wonderful thing to benefit all mankind or even one possible future Kyle homeowner is completely illogical. That’s like saying every city with a baseball stadium has a baseball team of equal caliber.

There are, however, certain features legitimate PIDs have in common. First and most important, the PID was created by a majority of the property owners within the district in question by signing a petition in favor of creating that PID. That’s an important distinction because it means the PID was created and the terms of the PID were agreed to by those who will actually be paying the PID assessments. They know and have agreed to the amount of their annual assessment before the petition is ultimately filed with the municipality. The way the PIDs will work in Kyle, those poor schmucks forced to pay the assessment have absolutely no voice in any part of the PID creation or its administration. Personally, I find it terribly disheartening and actually downright disgusting that just three days ago we honored those who stood up against taxation without representation while at the same time accepting city leaders here in Kyle who are forcing future residents to live under such a tyranny.

The other major difference is that it is the PID itself issues the debt. Now the city entertained a bunch of lying, thieving outlaws (the same ones that sold our inexperienced bumpkins this deal in the first place) who tried to say it was impossible for PIDs to work that way because there could be no lien on the property. That’s analogous to claiming individuals can’t purchase a new car with a loan, that money an individual needed to purchase a car could only be borrowed by a government entity. What happens if you fail to make payments on a car loan? The same thing that happens if payments are not paid on PID loans (and let’s keep in mind, when all is said and done, these are nothing more than loans) — the property is seized, it is liquidated and the proceeds are used to pay the bond holders.

Those, however, are about the only things PIDs have in common, although, unfortunately for the future homeowners of this one-horse town, PIDs in Kyle won’t even share those features. For example, different entities have different time lines within a development as to when a PID is created. Like I have pointed out in earlier articles on this subject and will prove again here, Dallas, to cite just one municipality, will not permit the use of PIDs for new development. They can only be created to pay for improvements in existing neighborhoods. Many other municipalities – Pflugerville is a good example of one in this area – employ PIDs as a last resort to complete funding of certain projects, relying for the most part on Tax Increment Financing, which is a much fairer system for the property owners and, unlike PIDs, really does prevent other parts of town from sharing in the rewards reaped by improvement in the PID district.

I have been writing about and covering governments all around the globe longer than Damon Fogley and Tammy Swaton have been alive. I know, for example, that Mayor Todd Webster’s new methodology for bringing agenda items before the council is goofy. He will try to tell you he’s following Roberts Rules of Order, but, as most knowledgeable government officials know, Roberts’ rules are rules for debating an issue, not discussing it. And if you don’t know the difference between debate and discussion, you don’t belong as an active participant in the legislative process. It’s like deciding to play tennis wearing roller skates. There’s nothing to prevent you from doing that. If you want to look stupid in the eyes of the world, so be it. But don’t try to convince anyone else that the proper way to play tennis is wearing roller skates. What we have here in Kyle, however, is a handful of city and former city officials who have never seen tennis played any other way so they just blindly accept the notion that playing on roller skates is the proper way to play tennis.

And when I describe Kyle as one-horse town, I am not making any reference to its size, only its sophistication and world view. Take in a City Council meeting at a much smaller community just up the road from us, Mountain City. Mayor Tiffany Canutt knows exactly how a city council agenda meeting is supposed to function. And she probably learned it from her predecessor and her predecessor learned it from the mayor before that. This type of intelligence has to be nurtured, you don't just pluck it out of the air. The truth may be painful to accept, but is the truth just the same. The little town of Mountain City gets it right, its much larger neighbor comes across as a tennis player on roller skates. And that's what I mean by a one-horse town.

Let me make something else absolutely clear. I don’t believe for even the briefest of seconds that either Swaton or Fogley are deliberately trying to deceive or swindle anyone. They are simply mouthpieces regurgitating the lies they have been fed and probably desperately want to believe. Look, Fogley is guilty of accepting illegal campaign contributions. Did he commit this illegal act because he was purposely trying to deceive or cheat anybody? I, for one, don’t think so. Personally, I am absolutely convinced he did it because he is new at all this and didn’t know any better. That’s why I have not even mentioned his illegal acts until now.

For all I care, you can give the man a tennis ball, a racket and a pair of roller skates the let the unknowing fellow have the time of his life.