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.

Additional thoughts on Tuesday’s City Council meeting

1. Daphne done did good

Faithful readers might have noticed that I have been somewhat critical of many of the actions, words, votes from council member Daphne Tenorio, but Tuesday night she deftly and quite successfully shepherded the unanimous passage of an ordinance prohibiting Lehman High School students from parking in any of the streets in the subdivision on the side of Bunton Creek Drive opposite the school.

And in doing so she guided the city toward bringing some necessary relief of a problem the school district has dismally failed to address.

Tenorio accomplished this by altering her modus operandi in a significant, yet politically strategic manner. Instead of making this a personal crusade, something "I believe has to be done," she made it all about "they." She positioned herself simply as "the messenger" bringing forth to the council what the residents of that subdivision told her they wanted done. And she had the proof in her pocket.

Tenorio apparently organized a series of neighborhood gatherings, prompted discussions and ultimately votes in which those attending decided in a democratic fashion (1) on which streets they wanted parking limited and (2) on which side of those streets they wanted the restrictions enforced. And when Mayor Travis Mitchell wondered about a resident that may have too many cars in his household to fit in the driveway, Tenorio was able to tell him the residents thought about this, considered it and said they wanted all parking restricted during school hours anyway. So there.

But Tenorio was also wise enough to label these restrictions a "temporary fix," because they address the manifestation of a problem, but not the problem itself. The responsibility for a permanent solution lies with the school.

During debate on the topic we heard all kinds of "guesses" about why students don’t park on the school’s parking lot and many of those "guesses" made a lot of sense. They ranged from it’s quicker to get to after- school jobs if the jammed parking lot could be avoided to students didn’t want to pay or couldn’t afford the yearly fee to park on the student lot to the cars don’t meet the requirements the school has established for parking on the lot. All well and good. But why "guess"? Why doesn’t the school learn precisely why the student’s don’t park on the lot? Why doesn’t the school sit down with those student motorists who prefer to park offsite and ask them specifically to explain why they do so? And then why doesn’t the school empower the students themselves to come up with solutions? OK, it’s been way longer than a half a century since I was a high school student, but I’m willing to bet in all that time between then and now one thing has remained the same: these young adults don’t much care for older adults telling them how to live their lives. And give these students some credit: If we’ve learned one thing from the work performed on a regular basis by the Kyle Area Youth Advisory Committee, it’s that these students can identify and solve problems that directly affect them. Establish a study group comprised of the student body president, other student officers and, primarily, representatives of those students who have been parking off-campus, give them a deadline, and have them offer a series of solutions by that deadline. This method will also go a long way toward getting student buy-in of whatever solutions are developed.


2. Better than wishing on a star
Earlier this month, I referenced the city partnering with the Make-A-Wish foundation in an fund-raising campaign the goal of which was to build a roller hockey rink in Gregg-Clarke Park. City Manager Scott Sellers addressed the project in greater detail during Tuesday’s council meeting and much of what he said he can found here.

"This story is very touching," Sellers said Tuesday night. "My son is friends with Ash Crain and I’ve gotten to know Ash — he’s a fantastic young man. This wish would mean the world to him."

Sellers said the city’s current budget contained funds for a covered pavilion in the park, but decided to "re-purpose" those funds upon learning of Ash’s wish. Sellers cautioned, however, the cost of the hockey rink was "a little higher than we had in the budget — quite a bit higher," the total cost being in the neighborhood of $385,000. Sellers said that figure might change slightly between now and construction "but that’s a pretty good estimate."

Now for the great news:

"Up to this point with the city’s contribution and private donations we are, in just two weeks, down to less than $40,000 to raise for this wish," Sellers said, drawing some clearly audible "wows" from the audience.

I had also written earlier about Majestic Realty Company having a foundation which places grants within the communities it serves and mentioned the fact that this campaign drive might be "just the type of a project a corporate partner like the Majestic Realty Foundation would likely be a part of." So, following Tuesday’s meeting, I approached the city manager and asked that since the council had just earlier in the evening given the green light to Majestic Realty’s major economic development project, might he approach the company’s foundation and solicit a foundation. Sellers looked at me, smiled and said: "They have already made a contribution."

If anyone reading this wants to do the same, you can do so right here.

The time for condescending is over

Pat them on the heads, tell them they’ve been good little boys and girls, but now it’s time for them to go to their rooms because the adults need to conduct real business.

In a story leading up to last night’s City Council meeting, I wrote with some measure of bitterness and disdain how the city pays lip service to the needs and wants of those who to prefer to use non-motorized means to get around town, but really finds it a waste of time to make it easier and/or safer for this mobility option. And I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised to discover during last night’s City Council meeting that council member Daphne Tenorio actually agreed with me on this — she, too, spotted the hypocrisy in language accompanying proposed ordinances to outlaw parking on one side of a couple of streets in Plum Creek, language that laughingly said these changes were needed because the current situation "is detrimental to the safety of pedestrians … traveling through this street." Tenorio asked Capt, Mark Schultz, who represented the Kyle Fire Department on these items before the council last night, "The ordinance states it’s about the safety of pedestrians. Shouldn’t it say it’s really for fire truck safety?" "Yes," Schultz replied. "I will remember that for next time." In fact, earlier in the discussion, when Mayor Travis Mitchell asked whether it would help to limit parking on the designated streets to residents only (it appears a number of Hays High School students park their cars in this area), Schultz replied "Residents only wouldn’t satisfy the need we have to provide the traffic flow that’s necessary for that area." And even before that, when Mayor Mitchell asked Schultz to explain exactly "why this item, is being brought forward," the assistant fire chief replied: "The road at this section is roughly 26 feet wide and when we have parking on both sides it makes it very difficult to get just one vehicle through much less two." See, it really is all about those in their cars and not those on their feet.

So, yes, Kyle’s hypocrisy in paying only lip service to pedestrian safety was exposed somewhat, even though council member Alex Villalobos, who is quickly becoming the Council’s Crown Prince of the Non Sequitur, babbled on about how this would protect kids racing out into the street between parked cars when, if he knew anything about the laws of geometry as well as pedestrian mobility, he would know that the move to switch the no-parking area in Agenda Item 10 from the park side of the road to the resident side, a change that was made to the ordinance last night, actually increased the danger for pedestrians there.

But the Plum Creek Parking Hypocrisy is over-and-done-with for the time being (and if Chief Schultz keeps his promise to Tenorio to "remember that for next time," it should not be repeated). My concern now is that notion of smiling, nodding of heads, mentions of "job well done," is going to amount to no more than lip service to the valuable, expert work being made public by no less than the Kyle Area Youth Advisory Commission (KAYAC). Last year, KAYAC presented to council a superbly researched study on sidewalks in the city, and, perhaps, this has more to do with what I have already illustrated — city government really doesn’t want to pay that much attention to the needs of pedestrians — than it does with KAYAC, but for whatever reason, I have yet to see any of KAYAC’s sidewalk findings being incorporated as policy by the council.

KAYAC, according to its website, is a "a 16-member committee that consists of youth ages 14-18, enrolled in ninth through 12th grade levels, and either reside in the city limits of Kyle or currently attend a high school in the Hays CISD school district or live in the city limits and are home schooled. KAYAC shall be advisory in nature and has been created for the purpose of providing a youthful point of view for the Kyle City Council on community affairs and issues. This commission shall provide the opportunity for youth in the City of Kyle to learn about municipal government and to advise Kyle City Council from the perspective of area teens."

Hopefully we have learned, not only from KAYAC’s presentation on sidewalks last year but through the evidence we’ve seen on a national level in the aftermath of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., that we need to pay more attention to the voices of our high school students. We can learn a lot from what they say.

Last night, KAYAC chair Benjamin White and Vice Chair Destinee Cabrera presented a fascinating and informative study on all-inclusive parks — areas and playgrounds that can be used by everyone, and, in this case, "everyone" refers to those with special needs. I had never really thought about this obvious fact until last night when White and Cabrera forced me to come face-to-face with the realization that I have never, in all my life, ever seen a person in a wheel chair enjoying the amenities at a city park — anywhere, at any time. White and Cabrera begged the question: "Why should these individuals with special needs be excluded?" Not only that, they illustrated quite convincingly how the city could make this inclusivity happen.

Sitting there last night listening to White and Cabrera, I couldn’t help be reminded of one of the best speeches I ever heard. It was delivered by former Texas Gov. Ann Richards and the thesis of her address that evening was simple: "When we help others, especially the disadvantaged, we often help ourselves in the process." She cited a number of examples to support her thesis, but the example I especially remembered and the one that sticks with me today concerned the Americans With Disabilities Act that was passed in 1990. And I recalled how much easier it would have been if the world in which I lived had ADA-compliant sidewalks back when my son was an infant and I was constantly pushing him in a stroller — how much easier it would have been not having to lift the stroller with the child over the curb. Those sidewalks were designed for those in wheelchairs, but, as Gov, Richards so wisely said, "When we help others, especially the disadvantaged, we often help ourselves in the process."

Now I hope Kyle city leaders think of those words. Now I hope Kyle city leaders don’t simply pay lip service to this incisive, well-researched KAYAC report on all-inclusive play areas. Now I hope Kyle city leaders don’t simply "Pat them on the heads, tell them they’ve been good little boys and girls, but now it’s time for them to go to their rooms because the adults need to conduct real business."

For the sake of the future of this city, for the notion that Kyle should be at the vanguard of acknowledging the humanity of all its citizens, here’s what I hope Kyle city leaders will do. I hope City Manager Scott Sellers will instruct Parks Director Kerry Urbanowicz or his designee (perhaps Facilities Manager Tim Cropley) to begin a series of meetings with White, Cabrera and their associates to begin the process of converting KAYAC’s presentation last night into long-range city policy.

"When we help others, especially the disadvantaged, we often help ourselves in the process." Last night KAYAC showed us the path to initiate that process. The city shouldn’t let it end there. They shouldn’t once again simply pay lip service to something that deserves attention and action.

City sidewalk repair policy gives citizens false sense of security

Too often I see evidence that the success of a democratic government depends on the stupidity of those being governed. In Kyle, however, it’s not so much stupidity as it is the laissez-faire attitude of the local populace. Look at the facts: Only 8.3 percent of Kyle’s registered voters bothered to cast a ballot in last year’s mayoral election. That means 91.7 percent simply don’t give a damn and when you have that many people who don’t give a damn you wind up with municipal policies that are stupid, illogical and potentially downright dangerous.

Take the city’s sidewalk policy, as an example. Because so many simply don’t give a damn, the minuscule minority that do has bludgeoned the city into adopting this masquerade, this Wizard-of-Oz form of tomfoolery that argues individual property owners shouldn’t have to foot the bill for sidewalk repairs; they should be paid for by the city, forgetting, for some reason, that the money the city has to spend on these repairs come from the taxes paid by those individual property owners. It’s worse than the oil filter commercial where the salesman says "You can pay me now or you can pay me later," this one is along the lines of "You can pay me now, next year, the year after that and on into forever and never get a thing in return." And because that 91.7 percent who don’t give a damn, that’s what happens around here.

How that manifests itself was made clear during last night’s City Council meeting when Public Works Director Harper Wilder outlined the results of the city’s sidewalk repair pilot program in which $20,000 of taxpayer funds was set aside in the budget to pay for the leveling of sidewalk sections. The current budget hikes that amount to $50,000. Harper told the council that because most of the city’s uneven sidewalks were located in Plum Creek, that’s where the $20,000 was spent. That’s right, all money put into this particular pot by all the property owners in all of Kyle was spent on repairing sidewalks in just one subdivision, which also happens to be the subdivision that sends the most voters to the polls each election cycle. Wilder said Plum Creek was chosen however, because "it’s the most condensed area" and then he added in typical municipal government double-talk Plum Creek was where "we had the largest number of sidewalks repairs in one place per volume."

Wilder did say that the city will be concentrating on subdivisions on the east side of I-35 during the next repair spree, although "spree" may not be the operative word here since the waiting list is long..

As Wilder described it, this sidewalk leveling process takes place when tree roots "next to the sidewalks are causing the sidewalks to heave at the joints and it raises the sidewalk joints causing a trip or fall hazard." I emphasized that last part of what Wilder said because it is really important. It illustrates the folly of this sidewalk program and the danger it poses to property owners. And don’t fret, I’ll eventually get around to explaining just how dangerous it is.

In addition to just picking out a politically strong problematic subdivision, the sidewalk repair folks, like disc jockeys of a by-gone era, take requests. "Typically we’ll get a call from a citizen that says we have a hazard there on the sidewalk," Wilder said in response to a question from Mayor Travis Mitchell, "Our staff will go and identify that and kind of give it a priority level and that depends on the elevation difference. We have a running list right now" of property owners requesting sidewalk repairs.

Here’s part of the problem with this. The contractor who actually performs the repair work told the council last night a typical repair takes "a day or two." So under the best of conditions, working every day, 365 days a year, that translates into about 240 repairs completed per year. But we also know these folks aren’t going to be working every day of the year. According to the Working Day Payroll Calendar as developed by University Human Resources at the University of Iowa, this calendar year contains 261 working days. So now we’re talking about 174 repairs made per annum. And, in a response to a question posed by council member Dex Ellison, the city’s staff said that "running list" Wilder refers to currently contains more than 400 requests from citizens for sidewalk repairs. That’s a backlog of two years and 3½ months.

This brings me right back to that dang "trip or fall hazard." If a person, let’s say for the sake of this argument, an elderly person is out for a walk during a nice spring-like afternoon and an uneven sidewalk causes that person to trip and fall, seriously injuring himself in the process, the property owner where that sidewalk is located can be held liable. In Kyle, the city cannot be held liable, only the property owner. Now, in order to collect damages, the person filing the lawsuit must prove negligence on the part of the property owner. The courts have held that any one of three factors can be considered by a jury when determining negligence and one of them is the property owner was "in a position where they reasonably should have known of the dangerous surface and failed to repair it." The operative word in that last sentence are "known" and "repair." Reporting it is simply not enough. And if you’re on a waiting list that takes more than two years for your number to be called, that tells a jury you knew for that long "of the dangerous surface and failed to repair it" all that time.

At one point during the meeting, Mitchell wanted to know "how difficult it might be to put some kind of time line (presumably on the city’s web page) for when polylevel (the sidewalk repair function) will be in a particular subdivision" so residents can see that they "are on the schedule for March, or on the schedule for the fall." Mitchell said he wanted to "be able to give residents an answer when they ask when is their sidewalk going to be repaired."

Council member Daphne Tenorio took Mitchell’s suggestion a step further. She wanted the city’s web page to (1) have a place where residents could apply for the sidewalk repair and (2) publish that so-called "running list" so they could see about where they stood in the pecking order, given the caveat they could at any time be bumped even lower down the list if the city received a request it deemed was of a higher priority. Which is all well and good but it’s like a doctor giving a cancer patient a slice of apple pie. True, the pie, especially if it came from our own hometown pie company, could make the patient feel better but it’s not going to do anything to treat the cancer.

The simple fact is the city should not be in the sidewalk business in the first place. It’s simply not fair, it defies logic, for someone on a rural piece of property with no sidewalks at all to be forced to pay for the repair of Plum Creek’s sidewalks. And what good is it to know where you stand on a two-year waiting list when that gives you no liability protection against someone who gets injured by sidewalks on your property?

But, then, since I’ve already established that most people in Kyle simply don’t give a damn, it only illustrates once again that the government functions essentially on the stupidity of those being governed.

All the voting items on last night’s agenda were approved 6-0 (council member Alex Villalobos did not attend) except for one — the minutes of the last meeting. And the lone person voting against those minutes was the only council member who did not attend that meeting. Go figure.

　

Council cites Tenorio’s record, demeanor as reasons for replacing her on water board

The City Council said Tuesday night council member Daphne Tenorio’s record of consistently opposing actions taken by the board of the Alliance Regional Water Authority coupled with what they described as a lack of decorum on her part during council meetings were reasons to remove her from the ARWA board.

"Your dissent, your voting record shows that you should not be a part of this — the single most important board that keeps our city moving forward," Mayor Pro Tem Shane Arabie told Tenorio during the meeting.

"Council member Tenorio proved, through her actions in the past and tonight, that she was not qualified for that position," Mayor Travis Mitchell said following the meeting.

By a vote of 6-1 (with Tenorio, or course, being in the minority) the council first voted to reconsider the decision it made just two weeks ago to install her as one of Kyle’s representatives on the board that oversees the area’s water supply and, second, to replace her on the board with Mitchell.

"I wanted to bring this item back for two reasons," Mitchell told his colleagues. "First, upon additional reflection and consideration, I wanted to make some additional statements and register a different opinion and, second, council member Arabie currently serves on the ARWA board and he wasn’t present at the last meeting. I think his perspective will be very valuable for us to consider as we move forward with making a board appointment from this body."

Tenorio charged that Mitchell was bringing the item back because he has a personal vendetta against her and rather than subject herself to more personal attacks, she said she would rather simply resign.

""This is nothing more than a personal issue between the mayor and myself," she maintained, "and that should have been left at the door. When a person is elected by the council, that decision should stand."

Arabie told Tenorio her "personal attacks are inappropriate. The fact that you like to attack everybody on the dais is unprofessional and the record could show the personal attacks you pushed towards other people is out there and are very easily seen.

"Now, this is the most important board our city has," Arabie continued. "Its purpose is to provide water for our citizens and our growth and our future for the next 50 years. Water is one of the most important resources that we have. The record will show that the dissent that council woman Tenorio has registered time and time again against this board is the reason why she shouldn’t be a part of it. You’re right. Let the record stand. You’re absolutely correct – your dissent, your voting record shows that you should not be a part of this — the single most important board that keeps our city moving forward. The majority of the council does not believe in your view so, you’re correct, you should not be a part of this board. The fact that you essentially resigned before this discussion — not fighting for your seat — shows that you should absolutely not be part of it. Because, when it comes right down to it, the city needs someone who will fight for them. Your resignation attempt proves you will not do that."

"I’m saddened by the incredibly unprofessional display of temper from council member Tenorio tonight," Mitchell said after the council finally adjourned its meeting 45 minutes after midnight this morning. "It was embarrassing for the council, those present and for the city. We have to be better than that as a council and we need to be better."

Several times during the discussion, Tenorio attempted to interrupt the council member speaking, prompting Mitchell to caution her at one point: "Council member Tenorio, you have not been recognized. You may ask to be recognized by holding up your hand."

"I hold my hand up all the time," she said, as she ratcheted up the volume of the conversation several decibels. "I thought this was a different mayor, but apparently it’s the same mayor with a different name.

"One of the reasons I chose to run for this position was because of the lack of diversity in this organization," Tenorio said. "There is only one woman on the water board. There is only one Hispanic on the water board and there is only one African-American on the water board. Therefore, there is not a majority of diversity of representation of our community. If a new person needs to be nominated, I recommend that the person who is nominated be of a different color and provide some diversity to that board, either it be a different race or it be a different gender."

Which left Tenorio an opening to do just that — nominate someone of a different race and/or gender — but she didn’t. Instead, she tried to interrupt Mitchell again by calling for a vote on the motion even though, according to Roberts Rules of Order, a speaker cannot be interrupted by someone calling the question.

Following the meeting, the mayor said Tenorio’s statements about race and gender disturbed him.

"They really bothered me, deeply," he said. "I am extremely committed to making sure that the city has the best representation regardless of what you look like or what your sex is. That’s just a fact. But, in this case, the qualifications are what win the day. Council member Tenorio proved, through her actions in the past and tonight, that she was not qualified for that position and I believe we made the best decision for the city."

"One of the reasons I wanted to bring this back," Mitchell said during the council meeting, "is because I felt that while a lot of considerations were discussed at the last meeting, that the ultimate decision we have to make is who we feel like is best going to represent this body with a collaborative mind set, who is going to sit on the board and advocate for the water positions so that we can get the most water possible and also who will represent the city’s best long-term interests. In this case, I feel the original consideration we made was not in that best long-term interest."

Tenorio tried to interrupt again, prompting Mitchell to tell her "You may raise your hand if you wish to speak."

Ellison did raise his hand, but Tenorio interrupted and Ellison chose to defer. After Mitchell then recognized Tenorio, she mocked the mayor saying "I’m so glad you shared your qualifications of being here a whole five years and having such a care for our great city over some of us who have dedicated decades of service to this community and to our families and making sure that this city is going the way it needs to go. But I’m some grateful that we have you to lead us because obviously nobody else could do it. So thank you."

Ellison, who was the only council member who wanted Mitchell to be the city’s appointee during the meeting two weeks, said he agreed with the mayor’s statements on qualifications.

"Tonight has proven to me why I did not vote for council member Tenorio for the ARWA board," Ellison said. "We can disagree and that’s fine, but let’s do it respectfully and let’s not interrupt each other and let’s do our best to represent the citizenry of Kyle. We see it throughout all levels of government — things that are really ticking people off with the way government is run — and we don’t have to follow suit with that. Let’s be respectful. Let’s do what’s best for the city. And, in my opinion, what’s best for the city is having the mayor representing us."

After saying Arabie shouldn’t be on the board because he is putting his house on the market in a few months (a claim Arabie said "was news to me"), Tenorio countered by saying, as a newly elected council member, Ellison had not witnessed the personal attacks she has been subjected to during her tenure.

In other action last night, the council:

• Voted 6-1 (Tenorio objecting) to add the provisions contained in the recently enacted Residential Neighborhood Style Guide to the city’s subdivision regulations;
• Voted unanimously to award a $49,895 contract for the first phase of a three-phase dog park to be located in Steeplechase Park and to adopt rules governing appropriate behavior in the park;
• After spending a little more than 40 minutes discussing exactly what the implications of them might be, voted 6-1 to pass on first reading amendments to the city’s ordinances regulating neighborhood fences that Planning Director Howard J. Koontz described as "evolutionary not revolutionary";
• Learned from City Manager Scott Sellers that the probable dates for the council’s two budget retreats this year would be March 24 and July 28; and
• Held an executive session lasting four hours and 10 minutes, most of which was spent interviewing and discussing possible representatives to serve as either city attorney or the legal counsel for the Ethics Commission, Because of the inclement weather, the council offered the candidates the opportunity to appear either during last night’s meeting or in an Executive Session on Feb. 6. All the candidates chose to come to last night’s meeting. That’s not to say the council won’t have a second round of interviews at its next session. (Although the Executive Session’s list of discussion items included "Jesse Espinoza Lawsuit," City Attorney Frank Garza said Espinoza just filed the discrimination lawsuit Friday and the City, possibly because of the Martin Luther King holiday Monday coupled with the inclement weather Tuesday, had yet to be served with the legal papers. Thus, he said, a discussion on the subject did not take place.)

Mayor seeks to reconsider Tenorio’s appointment to water board

During a meeting Tuesday in which the council is prepared to spend close to $10,000 on a pair of presumably doggie-friendly drinking fountains, see a presentation on a trail network that is supposed to connect Kyle to Austin and San Marcos but seems to be located a good distance west of Kyle, perhaps the most intriguing item is one proposed by Mayor Travis Mitchell to reconsider a vote the council took just two weeks ago to appoint council member Daphne Tenorio to the Alliance Regional Water Authority Board.

The mayor is maintaining silence about the reasons behind this movie ("We will not comment on item 4 at this time," he told me when I asked why it was appearing on Tuesday’s meeting agenda), but, of course, that’s not going to stop me from engaging in speculation based strictly on my own hunches and instincts.

I wondered why the council approved Tenorio on the board based on her past public criticisms of ARWA, but mainly because of her response to council member Tracy Scheel who asked her during the Jan. 9 council meeting why she wanted to be a member of the board.

"I met with a water person about big bills coming from this area," Tenorio said at the time. "I want to understand the processes of why these bills are so high. These bills that are coming from this board are affecting all of our families directly, Most people don’t realize how high their water bills are about to go."

From that response, it’s difficult to determine exactly what "bills" she is talking about, but I presume she is referring to the monthly bills Kyle residents receive to pay for the water they use. And if that’s the case, here’s the concern: ARWA has nothing whatsoever to do with these bills. Yes, it is true that ARWA has secured the rights to water in the Carrizo Springs Aquifer and will be constructing a system to ship that water to its members, one of which is Kyle. And, yes, it is true that there is a cost for that water and that system and Kyle is responsible for paying its share of that cost. But that share has already been determined and agreed upon by all parties so that does not appear to be a debatable issue. And, yes, the city has talked about paying for its share through a water bill rate hike. But that’s a decision for the Kyle City Council to make. It’s not up to ARWA to decide how Kyle will finance its share of the project costs. For example, the city’s Financial Magician Wizard Director Perwez Moheet could find a way because of the rapidly increasing property values, new business ventures coming to down (especially those north of Kohler’s Crossing), and the paying down of the road bonds, to finance Kyle’s share of the project with General Obligations bonds that don’t increase the property tax rate. It’s possible. But that’s a decision the city will make and the city council will approve. ARWA doesn’t have a voice in that.

So my concern at the time Tenorio was approved was whether she understood exactly what the function and the jurisdiction of the ARWA board was and what the responsibilities would be of Kyle’s representative on that board. In my mind, the main responsibility is to make sure Kyle gets its fair share of the water coming from Carrizo Springs. But nowhere in her response to Scheel’s question did I hear Tenorio say anything like "I want to represent and protect the best interests and the future water needs of our city" or that "I want to work with other board members to see how we can keep costs under control."

(Updated Sunday 12:07 p.m.) Tenorio told me moments ago the bills she was referring to are those the city will have to pay for its share of the project.

Council member Shane Arabie, who is Kyle’s other representative on the ARWA board, missed the Jan. 9 meeting because his work these days has him spending a lot of time on the western fringes of Houston. Hopefully, he will be able to make this Tuesday’s meeting because I, for one, would love to hear his views on the Tenorio appointment. He is someone who could either calm or further stoke my fears concerning this appointment. And perhaps the only reason Mitchell wants to reconsider the appointment is because Arabie has already assured the mayor he will be attending Tuesday and Mitchell is seeking Arabie’s public input as well. However, I actually think Mitchell’s motivation has more to do with the fact that he really wants to serve on the ARWA board and he feels the council pulled the chair out from under him just as he was about to sit in it. That is also just a hunch — I have no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise — to support that notion, but it’s still a persistent part of my thought processes as I think about what’s going on here. I guess we’ll all learn more about this Tuesday.

But back to those fountains and those trails.

Item 9 on Tuesday’s agenda is to spend $49,895 for the first phase of what Parks and Rec Director Kerry Urbanowicz says will ultimate be a $150,000 facility consisting of essentially two fenced-in dog parks — one for regular dogs and a second for smaller ones — to be built in Steeplechase Park. The $150,000, Urbanowicz says, will pay for a dog park that features "shade-covered benches and benches throughout the park, pervious walking trails within the park, trees and plants, dog washing station, trash cans, pet waste stations and pervious-paved parking." He said the first $50,000 is part of this fiscal year’s budget and that it will pay for "the fences, water fountains and transition zones (presumably the connection between the two dog areas); that he is hoping next year’s budget will include another $50,000 for the park; and that the final $50,000 "will come from donations, grants and partnerships from the public."

The first year costs include $28,972 for fencing, $2,344 for the gates to each of the two parks, another $2,954 for the fencing and gates at entrance to both parks and $9,970 for a pair of drinking fountains. I’m presuming it’s a drinking fountain along the lines of the one pictured here, although I have no way of knowing that. The $9,970 price tag seemed a tad high at first glance, but upon further research I guess, if you include the required concrete pad you see in this picture, it might be in the ballpark.

But what had me more excited than the water fountains, which would not spur me to drive clear across town to take my loyal canine companion to this particular facility, was the second slide in the presentation that Urbanowicz will probably show the council — the slide that, at first glance, seemed to indicate the dog park might be on the shores of a lake of some sort. My dog loves the water, She loves to plunge in and swim. That’s why she loves the beach and really enjoys the trails around the pond at Plum Creek. But every time I have taken her to a dog park — and I have taken her to more than a dozen different ones — and removed her leash, she doesn’t move, doesn’t run around, doesn’t want to engage with any of the other humans or canines there. The only exception was a dog park the City of Dallas located on the shores of White Rock Lake, She loved it there because she could jump in the lake and swim to her heart’s content. But when I inquired about that second slide in Urbanowicz’s presentation I learned from city spokesperson Kim Hilsenbeck that it "reflects the 100-year flood zone line and how we made efforts to be out of the zone as much as possible." So, maybe after a good rain, like we’ve had too many of lately …?

Item 3 on Tuesday’s agenda is captioned a "presentation by the Emerald Crown Trail Work Group on a proposed trail connecting Buda, Kyle and San Marcos to the Violet Crown Trail in Austin to the Purgatory Trail in southern Hays County." This is completely speculative. This is an idea being promoted by an organization calling itself the San Marcos Greenbelt Alliance, a 19-year-old all-volunteer non-profit group, although it goes out of its way in the presentation to say the proposed regional trail is not a SMGA project, that it is only serving as a "catalyst" for the trail’s partners (one of whom is the City of Kyle) and its stakeholders.

According to Community Impact newspaper, SMGA President Mark Taylor told Hays County commissioners Tuesday that transportation was the primary purpose of the proposed trail. "This trail will be to get people from one place to another," the newspaper quoted Taylor as telling the commissioners. "I think we will ultimately find — if we’re able to put this project together — that our communities (will be) connected more closely. That includes not just the three cities but the rural areas."

The newspaper also said that SMGA recruited geography students at Texas State University to map several proposed trails that would connect natural areas in San Marcos to the Violet Crown in South Austin. Judging from the presentation the council is expected to see Tuesday, as far as Kyle is concerned, it’s the "rural areas" and not the city itself that will be connected. All six of the proposed routes appear to be located far west of the Kyle city limits.

All this, it must be added, is nowhere close to reality. The alliance must still develop a concept/master plan, determine funding sources and talk to the landowners/developers who might be directly impacted by the trail.

For what it’s worth, the Violet Crown website states "In 2006, planning of the Violet Crown Trail began. Its purpose is to create the first regional trail system in Central Texas. After years of strategic land acquisition and planning, the first six-mile segment opened. With continued construction, the VCT is on its way to becoming the longest trail of its kind in Central Texas. Once complete the 30-mile trail will provide a unique recreational experience as it passes through the urban wildlands of the Barton Creek Wilderness Park, the City of Sunset Valley, and eventually into Hays County. Along its route the trail will connect scenic natural areas to neighborhoods, shopping centers, a library, and public parks. Passing near the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, the Violet Crown Trail will head south, winding through the rolling countryside of the City of Austin’s Water Quality Protection Lands in a uniquely natural setting."

Tenorio violates charter during special council meeting

District 6 City Council member Daphne Tenorio openly and defiantly violated a section of the Kyle City Charter during last night’s Special City Council Meeting by refusing to vote on the items on that meeting’s agenda while still discussing them, opening questions about her fitness to serve on the council.

After complaining about the contents of the minutes for the Nov. 4 special council meeting, she failed to participate in the voting on the approval of those minutes. She also failed to participate in the voting to approve the regular meeting minutes for the sessions held on Oct. 4 and Oct. 17.

The first sentence of Section 3.08 of the City Charter states: "All members of the council present shall vote upon every issue, subject or matter properly before the council and requiring a council vote; provided that, if any member of the council has a conflict of interest that fact shall be stated in the minutes and such member shall abstain from discussion and voting on the issue."

Tenorio not only failed to voice/record any "conflict of interest" on these three items, she also did not "abstain from discussion" of the items. In fact, she actually initiated the discussion on those minutes, clear violations of this section of the charter.

It will be interesting to see whether anyone will file any kind of formal complaint against Tenorio, who has a history of complaining about the actions of others on the council. In fact, her complaint about the minutes of the Nov. 4 meeting was based on her criticism of former Mayor Todd Webster’s decision to continue that meeting after Tenorio, without any explanation, left the council dias, leaving the council without a quorum. This prohibited the council from taking any action on a PID request until a quorum was re-established some 20 minutes later with the arrival of former District 2 council member Becky Selbera. However, the mere act of her complaining about what happened at that Nov. 4 meeting coupled with her non-participation in the vote connected with the issue are both charter violations.

It should be noted, however, that, under the terms of the revised Ethics Ordinance, the terms of four Ethics Commissioners — Ryan Browning, Margaret A. Le-Compte-Somma, Andrea Cunningham and Gary Rush — have expired. Plus Seat 3 is vacant, leaving only two active Ethics Commissioners, Elizabeth B. Guidry and Nancy Fahy, whose appointment, somewhat ironically, was just approved last night by a 6-1 vote (council member Shane Arabie voting "no.")

Updated Thursday, 11-23, at 10:21 p.m.) Tenorio replied to my request for a response by writing simply "I hope you and your family have a very happy Thanksgiving." (Editor's Note: She sent that e-mail to me Wednesday at 6:03 p.m., but I failed to see and read it until moments ago, shortly  after I returned from enjoying a very happy Thanksgiving with my family.)

Other than that, last night’s city council meetings were fairly routine, with the major events being the swearing in of Mayor Travis Mitchell and new council members Dex Ellison, Tracy Scheel and Alex Villalobos along with the council’s election of Arabie as mayor pro tem.

Back in 2015, I wrote a number of articles regarding how the council made a mockery of Roberts Rules of Order concerning the difference between "discussion" and "debate" on an issue. That was (hopefully) finally resolved with the adoption of new council rules last night that specifically delineates the differences between the two as well as defining a proper sense of decorum during City Council meetings. A couple of City Council members, who obviously don’t have the experience necessary to make such judgments, tried to maintain these rules stifled freedoms of speech. The truth is, in every City Council meeting I have ever attended in Tarrant, Dallas and Collin counties, those same words are read aloud, exactly as they appeared in the rule changes adopted last night, prior to every citizens comments period.

After one person abused the three-minute Citizen Comment Period by hogging the podium for more than six and a half minutes, council member Damon Fogley wisely said he would like to see the installation of a timing device to limit such abuses during both the Citizen Comment Period and various public hearings. It would seem a simple, inexpensive software adjustment could be installed so that a such a timer would be visible on the screens above the council dais.

For some reason not clearly delineated, Tenorio and Villalobos objected to Texas Pie Company owner Julie Albertson being appointed to a non-voting seat on the Economic Development & Tourism Board, with the key term there being "non-voting seat." If Kyle is to be known as "the pie capital of Texas," in part to attract tourism, it would seem, at least to me, a no-brainer that the owner of the establishment that earned the city that designation should serve on the Economic Development & Tourism Board.

In other action last night, the council:

• Delayed a zoning decision on property located on Windy Hill Road until Dec. 5 so that City Attorney Frank Garza could research whether the applicant had the right to build apartments on the property regardless of the zoning decision of the council because an agreement the applicant signed with Hays County prior to his property being annexed gave him permission to build them. The issue has the potential for setting an interesting precedent: Whether infrastructure improvements should be made because of development or in anticipation of it.
• Approved the appointments of Fogley to the Executive Board of the Combined Emergency Communications Center; Planning & Zoning Commissioner Rick Koch to cast the city’s votes on the Hays Central Appraisal District; Al Mata, general manager of the Hampton Inn, as a voting member of the Economic Development & Tourism Board; and the reappointments of Scott Stoker and Travis Upchurch to the Parks and Recreation Board.
• Approved without any debate and little discussion (Planning Director Hoard J. Koontz said he has had some interest from developers) the creation of mixed-use zoning districts that would be located alongside major arterials in Kyle.
• Heard a discussion on Community Development Block Grants, a program of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, meant primarily to fund development programs that benefit low and moderate-income recipients. CDBG funds may be used for community development activities (such as real estate acquisition, relocation, demolition, rehabilitation of housing and commercial buildings), construction of public facilities and improvements (such as water, sewer, and other utilities, street paving, and sidewalks), construction and maintenance of neighborhood centers, and the conversion of school buildings, public services, and economic development and job creation/retention activities. CDBG funds can also be used for preservation and restoration of historic properties in low-income neighborhoods. It is questionable whether (1) Kyle can find census tracts that are eligible for CDBG funds or (2) whether such funds will even be available much longer because President Trump’s war on low and moderate-income individuals has prompted his attempt to eliminate the CDBG program.
• Heard what could be described as a "plea" from City Manager Scott Sellers to cancel the planned Dec. 19 council meeting due to its proximity to Christmas.

Tenorio walkout paves way for PID approval

Council member Daphne Tenorio abruptly and without explanation left the council dias today making it possible for the council to authorize by a 4-0 vote a Public Improvement District designed to finance mainly sewer, street and drainage improvements in areas bordering a planned residential development just west of I35 between Opal and Rowland lanes.

Tenorio was actually the first council member to assume her seat on the dias for this special city council meeting, followed by council member Travis Mitchell and Mayor Todd Webster. I have reached out to Tenorio asking her why she left, but have yet to receive a response, so speculation must prevail. For some reason Tenorio opposes all PIDs, even extremely valuable and worthwhile PIDs like this one that are designed to work as PIDs are supposed to. Of course, the reality is, Tenorio doesn’t oppose PIDs, but what PIDs represent and that’s development. She has become a tool of the anti-growth movement in Kyle. So, it’s more than reasonable to assume Tenorio left the council chambers thinking she would deny the council the quorum required to hold the vote on the PID request, which, strategically speaking, was precisely the wrong move to make because all she did was assure its passage by her departure.

The truth is there is nothing she could have done to derail the PID. At most, she could have delayed it until the council’s next meeting on Nov. 21. But the only way she could have done that is to remain on the dias. Had she done that, she would have learned during the roll call that council member Becky Selbera was en route to City Hall, so a quorum would eventually be there regardless (council members Shane Arabie and David Wilson were out of the city early today). But, had Tenorio remained, she could have maneuvered to force the council to vote on the PID request before Selbera arrived and a 3-1 vote to approve (with Tenorio being the lone opposition) would not be sufficient to approve it because at least four votes are required for the council to approve anything. The reason that tactic would not have killed the PID, however — only delayed it — is because Mitchell or Webster, perhaps both, would have undoubtedly voted with Tenorio to deny approval and then one or both of them would have requested reconsideration of the item on the Nov. 21 agenda (only a council member on the prevailing side of a vote can request reconsideration).

Only two persons, Lila Knight and Tim Miller, appeared to speak during the public hearing on the PID and, to their credit, both actually addressed the issue of the PID itself, and not whether the property should be developed as planned, which was the off-the-topic subject of many of the preceding public hearings associated with this development. As Mayor Webster said twice during today’s meeting, the development will take place, regardless of whether the PID is approved.

Ninety percent of the roughly $6.4 million in revenue expected to be generated by the sale of the PID’s bonds will be used to finance improvements outside the development itself and even the 10 percent that will be applied to the development is to be used to transform what some who live in the area refer to as a swamp into usable park land, which certainly can be categorized as a neighborhood improvement worthy of a PID. The PID representative who attended today’s meeting told council members present that the annual PID assessment is expected to be between $860 and $875, which will part of the same escrow account lenders establish to pay all local property taxes. That means the overall price tag on a home in this development will be up to $17,500 higher than the actual market value of the home and could also place these homeowners in a position of having to pay interest on their assessments, which increases the total assessment even more. Of course, a prospective homeowner could pay the entire assessment at closing to avoid the interest, but, economically speaking, that would not be a sound move unless the buyer was fully committed to owning that property for 20 or more years.

Assistant City Manager James Earp told the council "the most important" improvement to be financed by the revenue generated by the sale of the PID bonds is a sewer connection. "There’s no sewer in that part of town," he told the council. "The city is building the southside sewer project which will allow the sewer to be collected at Yarrington and then pumped back to our plant up the interstate frontage road. But the collection system on the west side of the interstate needs to be built and that’s what one of the fundamental items in the PID is for the subdivision to be able to build that sewer infrastructure.

"Probably the next two things that are important are the transportation networks," Earp continued. "The roads, Opal and Rowland, are both under-built and any amount of traffic that would be generated by a new development would put an undue burden on the roadway." Earp said the normal policy is to require developers to pay half the costs of needed roadway improvements. "In this case, the developers are rebuilding the entire section of the road from beyond their entrances points back toward the interstate."

Webster asked Earp whether the developers were simply rebuilding the road or improving it.

"It’s going to be wider," Earp answered. "I think it’s a three-lane segment."

A third component, Earp said, were the installation of silent crossings where Roland and Opal lanes cross the railroad tracks. In an obviously unplanned, but highly ironic moment, Earp had to speak over the sound of a train whistle to tell the council the railroad tracks run along the eastern boundary of the development. "The city is trying to move toward having all of our crossings in the city be silent crossings. And these were two silent crossings the city had on its list to do in the future. But because of the development, the development has agreed to take those silent crossings on as a part of their development and pay for it through the PID financing."

"It’s very rare for a development to do that type of improvements we’re taking on," said Brett Corwin, project manager for Intermandeco, the developer of the project. "Usually you stay within and along the boundary of your property and you’re only responsible for just half of that. So we’re going above and beyond to make sure that the connectivity from (Interstate) 35 is sufficient for the neighborhood. And when we add the quiet crossings on our project and bundle them with the ones the city is already working on then you’ll have a lot quieter city council meetings."

Corwin said the drainage pipes servicing Opal and Rowland lanes are "completely insufficient …so what we’re putting in will help a ton. It’s a huge upgrade as far as drainage goes on the roads."

Webster said as long as prospective buyers are fully informed about the PID and the costs associated with it before they purchase a home, he’s on board with the funding mechanism. "It accomplishes what I’ve heard over and over and over and over again for 20 years: ‘All this development’s coming in and it’s raising our taxes.’ This is a mechanism to make sure that tax burden for those infrastructure improvements is not borne by everyone in the community."

Council to meet in special session Nov. 4

The City Council last night scheduled a special meeting for 9 a.m. Saturday, Nov. 4, to conduct a public hearing on the creation of a Public Improvement District (PID) in connection with a development planned for property immediately west of the railroad tracks, between Opal and Roland Lanes, that, if recent history is any indication, will attract a number of persons who will talk about everything but the subject of the public hearing.

As regular readers are well ware, I am no friend of Kyle’s PID policy, but I have absolutely no problem with this proposal. Let me see if I can explain why. First, let me tell you why I oppose, generally speaking, Kyle’s way of handling these funding mechanisms. As already noted in the first paragraph, the "I" in "PID" stands for "Improvement." Kyle, however, employs PIDs, for the most part, to help finance developments, not improvements. The way a PID is created is quite simple. The owners of the majority of the properties wishing to have a PID for a specific project must formally approve its creation, knowing that by approving it they are pledging to pay for the bonds sold to finance the project as well as the interest on the bonds. Usually they are committing to pay these costs in monthly installments over the life of the PID. However, when it’s used to finance a new development, there is usually just one, perhaps two, owners/stakeholders who agree that a PID should be created, but it’s repaid, not by those original owners/stakeholders, but by all the individuals who purchase homes in the development and had absolutely no voice in the creation of the PID. That’s why I have claimed Kyle’s PID policy amounts to taxation without representation.

But this PID is different — markedly different. First, and most important in my mind, is the fact that the most of the money derived from this PID will be used for improvements, not development. Specifically, it will be spent on widening and improving Roland and Opal lanes from the entrances to the development across the railroad tracks. It will also be used to improve drainage in the immediate neighborhood of the development. But even more important than that, the PID will be used to finance the installation of quiet railroad crossings on Roland and Opal Lanes. Those installations, combined with the city-financed quiet crossings at Center and South streets, will eliminate the need for trains to sound those irritatingly loud horns anywhere in the city of Kyle, thus drastically improving the quality of life here. I hope readers noticed I many times I used a form of the word "improve" in this paragraph.

Here’s the second reason I can support this PID. Because of changes to Kyle’s PID policy instituted by council member Travis Mitchell (who joined the council after the original PID policy was adopted) anyone purchasing a home in this development must be made aware, before that purchase, that they are also committing to pay an additional $120 a month — in addition to their mortgage payment, in addition to any homeowners association fees, in addition to their property taxes — as a PID assessment. If that home buyer agrees to that, then that, to me, is tantamount to voting for the creation of the PID in the first place.

Now, why do I say that this planned public hearing "if recent history is any indication, will attract a number of persons who will talk about everything but the subject of the public hearing." It’s because, within the last eight days, two different city panels, the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council, had items relating to this development on their respective agendas that attracted individuals who came to talk on a subject that had nothing to do with what was on those agendas. So I don’t see why this Saturday’s meeting should deviate from that norm. On Oct. 10, the Planning & Zoning Commission’s agenda included an item for the commissioners to consider a preliminary plan for the development and to possibly suggest changes to that plan that didn’t violate the Development Agreement already in place for the development but possibly aligned it more closely with the recently approved Design Guide. A number of speakers, most of those living near the planned the development, came to the meeting wanting the commissioners to stop the development, a subject that was not up for discussion. During last night’s city council meeting that contained an item to consider accepting the PID application and petition (by the majority of stakeholders, which, in this case, was one) to create the PID, most of these same individuals who showed up at P&Z the week before came to the council to voice their complaints, not about the PID, but by the proposed density of the project and the fact that it will include (horror of horrors!!!) a multi-family component. Again, not the subject of the agenda item.

So I’m predicting (although I really do hope I am wrong about this) many of these same folks will find the willpower to get to City Hall early on the first Saturday in November to complain some more. Here, however, is why I hope I am wrong. How can anyone in their right mind oppose road improvements, drainage improvements right outside their homes that they don’t have to finance through their own tax dollars? How can they oppose making their community eminently more peaceful by eliminating trains blaring their horns right outside their doors that they don’t have to pay for out of their tax dollars either? But I’m predicting they will. I could even foresee one city council member arguing against it. But their only arguments have to be off the subject, because arguing on the subject simply doesn’t make any sense. At least, as far as I can see. All those coming to speak against the likely agenda item on Nov. 4, regardless of the words that come out of their mouths, will be those still arguing not to locate the development there and refusing to accept the reality of the situation which is, frankly, that ship has sailed, that subject has been off the table for quite some time now. Sisyphus lives in Kyle.

Perhaps as many as three members of the council thought last night’s meeting might be their final one as a member of the council and, in somewhat of an ironic twist, the Nov. 4 meeting adds one more to their list. But Mayor Todd Webster believes it isn’t an added burden.

"My goal in these last few city council meetings is to complete all those projects we started," he told me "That’s why there have been what might be viewed as a large number of items on these recent agendas. "This next meeting will complete those projects.".

The following also happened during last night’s council meeting.

• Of the 20 agenda items the council voted on, 19 of them passed unanimously. However, those unanimous votes were 6-0 because council member Daphne Tenorio, who obviously was suffering from something health related, said at the beginning of the citizens comment period she had just been released from a hospital only hours before the meeting began and was "in a great deal of pain." She asked to be excused from the remainder of the meeting, a request the rest of the council readily agreed to. However, before she left, she said she would have opposed two items related to improvements and changes in the Cool Springs subdivision (although one of those items was the only one on the agenda that received a dissenting vote), all the proposed zoning changes and "the Plum Creek business parks." She was not clear on which of two items involving development in Plum Creek she was referring to, but I’m going to naturally assume it was the one to approve a plat for two commercial lots and not the one involving an agreement with the Plum Creek Development Partners, Ltd., that will save the city close to $10 million.
• It is also worth noting that one of the rezoning items — to allow for RV zoning — was denied by a unanimous vote so her opposition to that proposed change would have made the final tally 7-0 instead of 6-0.
• The city formally accepted the Police Department Audit and I learned the Operations Review Committee will meet at 1 p.m. Monday to decided which one of the audit’s recommendations should be implemented. "We are very excited about the opportunity to discuss and implement the recommendations they brought forward," Police Chief Jeff Barnett told me after the council meeting adjourned at 11:59 p.m. "Because I truly believe all the recommendations can improve our operations, we’re excited about any all of them that will come out of that committee."
• City Manager Scott Sellers made a special presentation to "allow the council to reflect on three great years" and "what we have accomplished together" in that time, before reading from a lengthy and impressive list of those accomplishments. Sellers concluded by telling the council members the city staff had willingly bought into "four core values that truly guide us in all that we do. And those core values spell the word "Kyle" — Knowledge, Yes Attitude, Leading Edge, Employee Accountability. We live by our core values. They are hung in our departments. We wear ‘Team Kyle" wristbands. It is something we live and we’re happy to live it. It has shaped the way our citizens feel about living in our city — they are proud to live in the city of Kyle. All of our new employees quickly learn about our fantastic culture here and that culture is set from the (city council) dias. We couldn’t be happier for the progress we have made or the direction we have received for the tasks and the great projects we have been able to carry through together under your guidance and leadership. And I want to thank your for that. And I want to thank the staff that’s worked tirelessly to bring all that about over the last three years."
• After the vote to deny the RV zoning on Dacy Lane, council member Shane Arabie sharply criticized certain comments made during the public hearing on the item. "Every time we’ve had something come in front of us that somebody didn’t like it was always the sex offender talk or it increased the crime rate. And that’s with every piece of property somebody didn’t like next to them. It’s not about ‘I don’t like it in my back yard," because that doesn’t give you the right to say what can go there. They own that property. Not you. You didn’t buy the property. They bought it. Just like you bought your home and you can decide what to do with it." After mentioning he currently resides in an RV Park, along with a close friend "who makes six figures a year," Arabie told the audience ‘So every time you say there’s a sex offender living there, look at me, because I’m the person that going’s to be living in these upscale, nice RV parks. So remember, when you put that picture out there, you’re talking about me and my friend that works in the physics department whose making the part that works in almost every piece of electronics you hold in your hand — people who I guarantee are among the top 1 percent educated on this planet. So just be mindful of who you’re talking about when you talk about this,"
• After the council heard a presentation that the city can save as much as 75 percent on vehicle maintenance costs and 25 percent on fuel costs, the council voted to implement a one-year pilot program to turn over the city’s acquisition and maintenance of its non-heavy vehicle fleet to Enterprise.
• The council also authorized the purchase of five gateway signs and at least 16 wayfinding directional signs.