Selbera, Wilson will not seek re-election

The two most senior members of the Kyle City Council – District 2 mainstay Becky Selbera, the longest-serving council member in the 21st Century, and District 4 stalwart David Wilson – individually revealed Tuesday they would not seek re-election.

Selbera’s decision caps a council career of more than 15 years that began when she was first elected in May of 2002 to represent the area of Kyle where she was born and raised.. Wilson joined her on the council in 2007. Wilson made his revelation before Tuesday’s council meeting and Selbera made public her decision immediately after the meeting adjourned.



Becky Selbera

"After a great deal of thought and prayer, and with a great deal of regret, I have decided not to seek re-election this November," Selbera said in statement she apparently composed during the council’s session. "It was incredibly difficult choice, but one that I feel comfortable about. I love my city and I look forward to our great future."

In public, during council meetings, Selbera came across as the quietest, gentlest person on the dais. But many of her colleagues have told me that in closed, executive sessions, there was no one more lucid, more clear-headed or as influential as the District 2 councilperson. "People generally don’t get to test what their convictions are," Selbera said in her statement. "I did get to test mine and I am proud of how I handled it. And I think that we have changed our city in a positive way."

It could also be argued that no one suffered, yet withstood, the slings and arrows of criticism from a small cadre of vocal citizens more than Selbera, something she alluded to in her statement. "As a city council woman I have taken a few blows over the years, but I have bounced back. I have come to accept the triumphs and pains that come with the grind of politics."

She said she was proud of many of the accomplishments she "and my colleagues" achieved during her years on the council including Kyle’s very first swimming pool, the construction of City Hall, the south and east side fire stations, the H-E-B, the Seton complex and all the new infrastructure that has finally come to the historically neglected south side of town.

"I leave knowing that the city is headed in the right direction and is ready to embrace the exciting changes ahead," she said.

At the same time, however, she indicated she will not retreat completely from public life.

"I leave knowing that my relationship with the city staff and that my work on behalf of the city is far from over," she said. "I have no doubt that I will continue to serve my community as a private citizen, and influence the next generation of leaders. I have found service to my district and all the city’s residents to be the most satisfying and richest experience if my life and I will always be appreciative of my constituents and the City of Kyle for the opportunity to serve."



David Wilson

Wilson said that during his tenure on the council, Kyle has "evolved from a sleepy little railroad and ranching community into a community with robust medical services, educational opportunity and quality retail services."

He also predicted even more dynamic changes are close at hand. "The future is very bright for Kyle," he said., "We have laid the groundwork for Kyle to be a destination and grow the business community. Jobs and business opportunities for our citizens are coming in the near future."

Wilson also added that "there will always be challenges which need to continue to be addressed" and that he wanted "to encourage Kyle citizens to serve the City of Kyle on the City Council" to meet those challenges, adding "we need to continue the forward thinking and planning we now enjoy."

"I am invested in the community," Wilson concluded, "and will enjoy watching as a new City Council continues to move the city forward in a positive direction."

Wilson will be especially remembered for his tireless efforts to make sure Kyle has an ample water supply as well as his unending efforts to honor fellow veterans.

Three city council positions were up for grabs in the Nov. 7 elections and Wilson’s and Selbera’s announcements guarantee that all three will have new occupants. Mayor Todd Webster announced back on July 8 that he would not seek a second term.

I really want one of those T-shirts

First of all, kudos to council member Travis Mitchell for his fantastic Fourth of July fireworks photo that he first posted on Facebook and which dominates the front page of this week’s Hays Free Press. That’s prize-winning, museum-worthy photography and my hat’s off to not only the result, but what he had to do to capture the dramatic photo.

My very first reaction when I extracted the local weekly paper from my mailbox today was "Man, would I love to have a T-shirt with that picture on the front of it. But not just the picture, mind you. I would also want that Hays Free Press headline, ‘Kyle Lights,’ in that same neo-neon lime green/lemon yellow color that the paper superimposed on the photograph."

And the more I thought about it, the more I thought I might not be the only person who would like an artifact like that. As my mind continued to wander, I thought the Free Press could offer the shirt as some kind of incentive for new or renewing subscribers. See, I’m one of those who believes every household should receive and read its hometown newspaper.

But the more I thought about it, the more I liked this idea: Mitchell’s council colleague David Wilson is trying to raise funds for a veterans memorial to be located at the pond in front of the Performing Arts Center. So I’m wondering whether Mitchell, Wilson and the Hays Free Press could find a way to collaborate on a program to print not only T-shirts, but also posters (hoodies? sweatshirts?), of Mitchell’s photograph as shown in this week’s paper with any and all profits going towards the realization of Wilson’s veterans memorial.

I’m open to other ideas for how to use this picture to raise awareness of Kyle and its civic efforts (or any other worthwhile cause someone might want to propose). All I know is that I really want one of those T-shirts, not only for myself (although, to be perfectly honest, I really want one for myself), but also for gift-giving occasions.

It’s just too good to pass up.

Kyle may “Dexter” its government operations

I am not a big fan of episodic TV. I will watch a series via streaming or on disc after it has completed its first-run telecast if one is recommended to me by fellow members of the Writers Guild whose opinion I respect. I don’t "binge watch" as a lot of folks apparently do. Usually I watch a little less than episode per week. One of those series I’m currently watching — I’m about two-thirds of the way through Season 3 — is Dexter.

And, frankly, I am beginning to wonder why this one came with such a strong recommendation. It is a tad melodramatic for my tastes and it lays on the angst of the story’s titular character way too thickly. I will admit to admiring the audacity of creating a television series around a despicable human being — in this case, a serial killer — but Dexter is not the first TV series based on that premise: both The Sopranos and Breaking Bad handled that concept far more successfully than Dexter.

But the real problem I’m having with the program is that I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the show actually believes its main character is a "hero," a "good guy." It seems they are buying into their own false premise that it’s OK to murder your fellow human beings if, in the opinion of the murderer, the victims "deserved:" to be murdered because of some heinous crime they may have committed but escaped justice for. I have no idea how the series ends — and I don’t want anyone to spoil it by trying to tell me how it ends — but I’m going to be furious if this guy doesn’t get the punishment he deserves, i.e., a gruesome demise.

I mention this only because I want to pose the argument that it is inherently wrong for a city government to use public, taxpayers funds to repair private property. Stated like that, I think most people would agree with me. The City of Kyle, however, appears set to go all Dexter on that argument. Just as Dexter seems to be arguing its OK to diabolically, gruesomely murder another human being if the murderer feels the crime is justified , the city is prepared to make a similar exception to the "using taxpayer money to repair private property" rule when it applies to sidewalks.

It’s a dangerous precedent that simply doesn’t stand up to the arguments against it. However, of the six council members who attended last night’s City Council meeting (Mayor Pro Tem Damon Fogley missed last night’s meeting due to a death in his family), the only one who agrees with me on this is Shane Arabie.

I don’t have enough time or the energy to enumerate and elucidate on all the problems with this notion ventured during last night’s City Council meeting, but I will mention a few of them.

First of all, the council is lying. Well, perhaps, not really, but based on last night’s conversation most observers are going to walk away thinking the city is now willing to accept responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of all sidewalks in Kyle. And, going forward, if this hair-brained scheme is approved, that’s the message that the public will her and absorb. But that doesn’t appear to be what the city is planning on doing. What the council discussed last night was strictly a relatively inexpensive way to fix a sidewalk in certain situations, specifically one in which a crack in the sidewalk has caused the walkway on one side of the crack to be lower than the walkway on the other side. That’s it. If you’ve got a hole in the sidewalk, forget about it. It doesn’t appear the city is going to repair that. If a tree root has busted through the sidewalk, effectively splitting it in two with a space between the two sections, I don’t think the city plans on coming to your rescue there either. What the city is actually planning, according to council member David Wilson, is contracting with a private company that will inject a polymer under one side of a sidewalk to elevate that side and make it even with the other side. That’s it. The cost will depend on the number of inches one side needs to be raised, i.e., how much polymer is required.

Now Wilson said the city has identified 270 instances in Kyle that could use this type of repair and the decision the council needs to make at some future date is whether to budget the money needed to make these 270 repairs over a five-year period. Which raises even more concerns that I will address momentarily.

But let’s get back to my original problem. The public is going to perceive that the city is going to be repairing and maintaining all sidewalks and that doesn’t appear to be true: it only plans on leveling those 270 sidewalk locations and even that will take place at what appears to me to be the incredibly slow pace of one sidewalk leveling repair per week over a five-year period. So what happens when some homeowner sees the city repairing a sidewalk across the street, but then learns the sidewalk repairs he needs are not leveling, but, say replacing? How is that homeowner going to react?

Like I said, it’s a slippery slope, a dangerous precedent.

If a homeowner carefully examines the deed for his/her property, that homeowner will see the front of the property line extends to, at least, the curb of the street on which the property fronts. That means the sidewalk is on private property and thus is the responsibility of the owner of that private property. "But," council member Travis Mitchell argued after last night’s meeting," that sidewalk is a public right-of-way and the homeowner doesn’t have the right to remove it," True, but neither does the homeowner have the right to remove all the landscaping from the property and just pave it all over to avoid landscaping time and costs. However, under the city’s new sidewalk rule, if the fact that a homeowner can’t remove a sidewalk is to be used as justification for the city to make and pay for (certain) repairs to that sidewalk, doesn’t that mean the city can he held responsible for maintaining the property’s landscaping as well? If Code Compliance can cite a homeowner for, say, overgrown weeds, and order that homeowner to fix the problem, why not simply have Code Compliance site the homeowner for needed sidewalk repairs as well?

Now the city will claim that the reason it is getting this great price break for the repairs is because of the amount of such repairs that is required in the city is such a high number and individually those numbers would not work for the contractor at that reduced price. Bull-pucky. If the city cited a homeowner and the citation noted that the homeowner had one year to repair the deficiency or would be subject to a fine greater than the actual cost of the repair, the homeowner would most likely not only contract to get the job done but possibly even thank the city for finding a company that could make the repair at such a reasonable price. Not only that, the repair could be made within a year and the homeowner wouldn’t have to gamble on whether his address in the city’s lottery would be at the beginning or at the end of a five-year period. That means the company gets five times the volume of business in one year than it would under the city’s plan.

The reality here is the city wants to Dexter the sidewalk issue: "Yes," the city will argue, "it is wrong to use taxpayers funds to pay for repairs on private property, but when it comes to sidewalks we’re going to find a way to justify it." It’s not right, but it’s politically expedient (until the public finds out it isn’t entirely true).

Here’s another fallacy in Mitchell’s "public right-of-way" argument. Suppose a water pipe located beneath the foundation of my house breaks resulting in a major water leak. Whose responsibility is it to fix this? Technically, that water is not my property. It haven’t "purchased" it from the city until it flows into my hot water heater or I turn on the faucet or flush the toilet and it actually enters my home. The answer, however, is obviously it’s the homeowner’s responsibility to pay for the excavation, perhaps though the home’s foundation, and repair of that water line. But if the city is now going to assume responsibility for maintaining certain items of private property, what’s to prevent some hotshot legal mind from deducing it sets a precedent that covers all such repairs, including those that involve the delivery of any city service, i.e. water? Certain responsible city governments do assume a limited amount of liability in matters such as these. I realized I faced a potential major water leek under my home in Dallas when, for two straight months, my monthly water bill, which normally averaged a little more than $100 a month, was close to $500. After I arranged for and paid for the needed repairs (which resulted in a major hole having to be drilled and later refilled in my kitchen floor), the City of Dallas had a plan which allowed me to take the two $500 water invoices (which I had also paid — I didn’t want my water turned off) along with invoices from those same two months the year before, to Dallas Water Utilities which then credited me with the difference. I didn’t have to pay for water again for almost a year. But it didn’t assume responsibility for fixing the leak. In fact, Dallas, like the overwhelming majority of city governments in this country, doesn’t use taxpayer funds to pay for any repairs on private property, including sidewalk repairs.

To his credit, Arabie disagreed with this entire Dexter approach on both a practical and a philosophical level. But, unfortunately, he was the only one with the courage to do the right thing and not to bend in the political winds.

On the practical side he questioned "What is the life span of the poly-fill? What is the longevity of the poly-fill? What’s the weight-load capacity of poly-fill? What are we going to do if we have problems later on. I have a problem with all of those." And then he asked the pertinent question I addressed earlier: "What are the percentages of the sidewalks that will be fixed with the poly-fill.?" And if the city decides it needs to fulfill the promise it appears, on the surface, to be making and that is to assume all responsibility for sidewalk maintenance and repair, Arabie wanted to know "What are the percentage of sidewalks that will be fixed with conventional methods? How many miles are we going to fix? How much tax dollars are we going to appropriate towards this?"

Then he made what I believed is the concluding argument: "If we’re going to consider this, then it’s going to be a policy that we’re going to fix the sidewalks. So what’s the policy standard we’re going to fix them to? The reality is, this idea doesn’t fix all of our (sidewalk) issues. The soil will still flex and still move. We’re still going to have problems with sidewalks. The policy decision that needs to be made is whether we’re going to assume responsibility to fix the sidewalks. That’s the policy decision, not what we’re going to pay for. So I don’t necessarily agree with the way we’re moving forward right now."

After the meeting, I posed the more philosophical side of the question is Arabie and he replied "I vehemently oppose using taxpayer funds to repair any private property."

So there’s that, as well.

In other matters worth noting from last night’s City Council meeting:

• The city appeared to be leaning in favor of spreading over a 30-year period, not 20 years. Kyle’s $60.1 million share of the total cost of the Hayes Caldwell Public Utility Agency’s project to transport water from the Carrizo aquifer to local customers, even though Mitchell, noting a 20-year option would save taxpayers $21.3 million in interest payments, argued for the shorter time span. The reason given for the longer period is that would allow for additional customers moving into the area during years 21-30 to share in the pain of having to repay the note. City Finance Director Perwez Moheet estimated the average water customer could see as much as a 42 to 50 percent water bill increase under the 30-year plan, although Mayer Todd Webster said some of the debt could be repaid from available moneys in the General Fund. "There was a time not that long ago when the city hadn’t adequately planned for water" and the result was "we didn’t have water," Webster noted. "I went through the experience of trying to turn the faucet on and the water didn’t work. A number of times. And that was one of the two things that prompted me to get involved and be part of the solution. That solution grew into and became a regional collaborative to try to bring water to the region and that’ has evolved into the HCPUA And Kyle was actually the prime mover and the ones that initiated the thing." Webster acknowledged residents will suffer sticker shock when they see the effects the three proposed bond sales ($8.99 million this year, $24.19 million two years from now and $26.92 million in 2021) will have on their water bills "but I can assure you the cost of not doing something is far more than this." The city did not officially make any decisions on this issue — it really didn’t even give city staff a clear direction on how to pursue the matter — but the overall impression I got was the majority of the council is leaning in favor of financing the project over 30, not 20, years.
• The council voted to create a PID in the Blanco River Ranch Development project, a decision that was little more than a formality since the PID had already been part of a previously negotiated Development Agreement.
• On a 3-3 vote on a motion to approve it, council members initially failed to OK the rezoning of a subdivision in far east Kyle that would have increased its density to the maximum allowable. However, Mitchell, who not only voted against the motion, but forced a change in the mid-term update to the city’s Comprehensive Plan because of his opposition to high-density projects on the city’s borders, sought and won a reconsideration of the vote. His subsequent motion to table discussion on the issue due to Fogley’s absence last night was approved 4-2 with Arabie and council member Daphne Tenorio, who both joined Mitchell in opposition of the original motion, voting against the delay.
• On another zoning issue, the council affirmed its decision last month to defy the Planning & Zoning Commission’s recommendation and voted to rezone a half-acre of land at 1408 W. Center Street from Construction Manufacturing to Community Commercial. P&Z had recommended a more restrictive zoning.
• The council passed on a 5-1 vote the final reading the mid-term amendments to that 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Tenorio cast the one opposing vote. She failed to give a reason for voting no, but, according to last week’s edition of the Hays Free Press she opposed its passage because she felt there had not been enough public input into the plan, which, in true Tenorio fashion, is her way of blaming others for her own shortcomings. She (and the rest of her colleagues on the council as well) needs to realize that the main, direct link between the voters and the city are the members of the City Council, not the city staff. Voters don’t elect the city manager, or the city’s chief of staff or the communications director; only the mayor and the council members. It is the council members’ responsibility to absorb the wishes of their constituents into their service and decisions on the council. During the almost two-year period this update was in the works Tenorio failed to schedule even one town hall meeting on the subject. Admittedly, none of her other colleagues did either, but they also did not achieve Tenorio’s level of duplicity by voting against the document, supposedly because of lack of public input, a situation she had the power and the authority to rectify if she really wanted to, if it really was that important for her. But once again Tenorio proved she is not interest in substance, only in posturing. I will have more to say on this subject in a later post.
• The council held a 52-minute executive session which was incredibly brief since the session’s agenda called for engaging in negotiations on eight different economic development projects. After the session, I asked the mayor if he could tell me, without divulging confidential information, if any of these projects were major job creators. "I think so," he replied. "Certainly by our standards. Any of them individually and all of them together will have a substantial economic impact. Without getting into details, which I can’t obviously, I will say I am very excited about these opportunities and they are just opportunities — nothing’s done. What the volume of these opportunities means is that all of our investment in infrastructure and capacity building and getting things straightened out here are starting to pay off now. Regardless of whether any of these come through there’s going to be dozens more. Regardless of the outcome of these negotiations, I feel optimistic. It affirms all the work that’s gone into the city’s increasing the ability to accommodate these kinds of things. It hasn’t paid off yet because we haven’t got there, but it’s a sign that the corner’s been turned."

Council amends Comp Plan to reflect “Smart Growth” philosophies

The term "transect" is most often connected with ecology. It refers to a progression through a sequence of ecological habitats — for example, from a wetland, to an upland to a foothill. Ecologists use the transect to describe how each habitat supports symbiotic sets of mineral conditions, microclimate, flora and fauna. "Smart Growth" urban planners have adapted this theory into something they call the "rural-to-urban transect" which, to put it in its simplest terms, means a sequence of human habitats of increasing density and complexity from the rural outskirts of a community to its urban core. The overriding principle of the "Smart Growth" urban planning movement, formulated early this century but a concept that really gained widespread support among learned urban planners in the last 10 years, is that a city’s "overall design should correspond to the logic of transition from the natural edge to the man-made center."

Council member Travis Mitchell wisely applied that concept last night to the city’s mid-term amendments of its 2010 Comprehensive Plan before the council approved, 6-1, the first reading of the ordinance adopting those amendments. The one lone negative vote came from no-growth mouthpiece Daphne Tenorio.

Mitchell’s change to the plan was, admittedly, minor in the overcall scheme of the entire plan, but significant in that in puts urban planners on notice that, from henceforth, the city is going to adhere more closely to the Smart Growth philosophy of urban management.

"A developer wants to build 13 houses instead of 10 in 650 feet," Mitchell said. "I understand that. That’s what a developer wants to do. It’s what’s coming at us, overwhelmingly right now. Almost every zoning request that we’re getting is for (the more dense) R-1-3. Some of those were absolutely appropriate in our core areas — next to the library on Scott Street, for example. That was appropriate there. But in the case of the East Settlement (land use district) and far east Kyle, putting in incredibly dense, flat, straight subdivisions is something I think we need to say is ‘conditional’."

Then Mitchell addressed the fundamental philosophy of the Smart Growth movement.

"These areas are far away from business development," the council member told his colleagues. "We have roads in those areas that are very narrow and when you put in dense development — 13 homes for every 650 feet — you get more traffic and it’s not the way a city should be naturally formed: density towards urban cores and regional nodes."

Mitchell’s motion to move the R-1-3 zoning category, along with R-2 (duplexes), from the list of the recommended uses to the list of conditional uses in the East Settlement landuse district passed on a 6-1 roll-call vote, with Shane Arabie casting the one dissenting vote. His motion to move R-1-3 only from recommended to conditional in the Heritage District passed on an identical roll call vote. Both districts are on the eastern edge of the city and a map of their actual locations can be seen by going here and then clicking on the last item of this list, "Land Use District Map May 2017."

It is worth noting, however, that immediately after adopting these amendments into the mid-term Comp Plan update, the council voted 4-3 to implement that denser R-1-3 zoning for a residential subdivision to be located in the East Settlement District.

In other action during last night’s four-hour, seven-minute meeting:

• City Manager Scott Sellers informed the council that a regional wastewater treatment plant might require construction far sooner than anticipated because of a denser-than-originally planned development in an area nominally located in San Marcos that many probably think is actually in Kyle. The development, once called LaSalle but which now bears the name Waterstone extends north and east from the northeast corner of I-35 and Yarrington Road. Under a convoluted agreement apparently reached several years ago, San Marcos owns and controls the surface of this property while Kyle has control over what’s below the surface. That simply means the land itself and whatever is developed on it will be officially located in the ETJ and most probably at some point within the corporate limits of San Marcos, but Kyle is responsible for providing for the underground wastewater infrastructure needs for that development. Under the terms of that agreement, Kyle agreed to provide wastewater service for 7,500 LUEs in that development. The news Sellers broke to the council last night was the developer is now planning on 10,000 LUEs there .The area is located in the Blanco River Basin which means the natural gravity flow of liquid would be south. However, Kyle’s wastewater treatment plant is located north of the development so the cost of installing and operating the lift stations required to send the wastewater from the development to that treatment plant, especially with the added density, could be more expensive for Kyle than contributing to the cost of building a plant further south that would be jointly owned and operated by Kyle, San Marcos and the HCPUA. The overall plan, according to Sellers, is for a 20-25 year build-out of the development. But because (1) it is expected, according to Waterstone’s developers, to have "homes on the ground" in the development by the end of 2018, and (2), according to the city manager, "the infrastructure needs to go in be right-sized today," Sellers told the council that plans for that facility may have to be accelerated but his immediate need was direction from the council on whether he should sign a letter pledging Kyle’s willingness to provide the needed infrastructure according to the accelerated development schedule. "The issue we are bumping into right now is a timing issue," Sellers told the council. He added "Because the engineering has not been finalized we don’t know exactly the location of that regional plant and we don’t have a plan to fund that plant," but, he added, "the pre-payment of impact fees can accelerate that timing of the regional plant where instead of putting infrastructure into the ground to get to our current plant it basically goes to pre-fund the regional plant.."
• After Mayor Todd Webster said the purpose of a proposed convoluted parking ordinance was designed, for the most part, to institute a fee structure for parking fines in order to quell the complaints from local residents over $200 parking tickets, the council voted 6-1 to turn the entire ordinance over the city’s legal department to edit it so that, essentially, it makes more sense than it does now.
• Following the presentation of a Memorial Day resolution recognizing members of the armed forces who lost their lives in battle, council member David Wilson announced a tentative site and a funding plan needed to supplement the money already designated by the city for the proposed Kyle Veterans Memorial. "We want a quality memorial," Wilson said. "We have the rough outline of what we want — something we can really be proud of in our community." Wilson said the current plan is for the memorial to be located at the lake outside the Performing Arts Center on the northwest corner of Kohlers Crossing and Kyle Parkway. "There’s a little indention between the two fountains right there at the PAC center," Wilson said. "The developer there is agreeable to the location." Wilson said one of his plans is to launch a "Gofundme" campaign to raise money to help pay for the construction of the memorial.
• The council quite correctly reversed the wrong-headed recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission and granted, in a 6-1 vote, Community Commercial zoning for a half-acre parcel located on West Center Street, what is arguably regarded as Kyle’s "Main Street." Although the original application was for that zoning, P&Z recommended a more restrictive Neighborhood Commercial zoning instead.

Tenorio muzzles council’s attempt to discuss alleged illegal activity

Council member Daphne Tenorio obliterated the city’s attempts at transparency last night by invoking a legal maneuver that prohibited the council from discussing allegations she committed a third degree felony by violating state "misuse of official information" laws, but not before slinging some mud of her own at one of her council colleagues and effectively calling the news editor of the Hays Free Press a liar.

In the process, Tenorio bypassed a golden opportunity to display real statesmanship by putting an end to the entire topic of discussion, opting to take the low road instead.

However, last night’s council discussion, while being forced to stop before the specific allegations against her could be made public, revealed enough information to determine more accurately what those charges might entail. That discussion began with City Manager Scott Sellers, at the request of council member Travis Mitchell, describing in general terms a potential economic development project the council discussed during a series of closed, executive sessions that began last August involving one or more private developers locating a sports complex somewhere within the Kyle city limits on land the city was willing to lease to the developers. The relevant council agenda item that was scheduled to be discussed cited Tenorio’s possible "Misuse of Official Information (relating to Texas penal code 39.06)," which states "A public servant commits an offense if, in reliance on information to which the public servant has access by virtue of the person’s office or employment and that has not been made public, the person (1) acquires or aids another to acquire a pecuniary interest in any property, transaction, or enterprise that may be affected by the information."

Thus, it is not a stretch to surmise the charges against Tenorio were either (a) she purchased an ownership share in the Kyle Stallions basketball teams because of information she learned about in executive session about this possible sports complex and how it could financially benefit the team, and/or (b) as a part owner or prospective owner of the team she failed to recuse herself from discussions about the impending development deal even though the project could be a financial benefit to the team. It’s important to note here, because of spurious countercharges filed by Tenorio’s attorney against Mitchell, that no one is claiming it is any way illegal for her to own the local semi-pro basketball team; the charges against her appear to be related solely to events that allegedly occurred during executive session discussions about a proposed economic development that could have had the effect of boosting the financial worth of that ownership.

And, if these are indeed the allegations that were to made against Tenorio, they are easily supportable and provable. For one thing there are plenty of witnesses to what happened, namely the other council and staff members, as well as the prospective developers, who participated in these executive session discussions. Not only that, Section 551.103 of the Texas Government Code states "A governmental body shall either keep a certified agenda or make a recording of the proceedings of each closed meeting, except for a private consultation permitted under Section 551.071 (which only covers seeking the advice of an attorney concerning "pending or contemplated litigation.") That means official records should exist of what transpired during the executive sessions in question.

Tenorio herself signaled the executive sessions discussions about the economic development project were directly linked to the possible criminal charges against her by recusing herself during the time Sellers outlined the pending project.

Now, however, Tenorio’s attorney, E. Chevo Pastrano Jr., claimed in a letter dated yesterday "To date, council member Daphne Tenorio, has not purchased the American Basketball Association’s ‘Kyle Stallions’ semi-professional basketball team …," a direct contradiction of the news story that appeared in last week’s edition of the Hays Free Press, headlined "Kyle semi-pro basketball team gets new local owner," written by the paper’s news editor Moses Leos III, that said "Tenorio was given, and ultimately accepted, the opportunity to buy ownership of the Kyle Stallions basketball team." Leos also wrote "Her motive, however, was driven by the prospect of potential profitability in the business." By maneuvering to stifle the discussion of the issue, the public does not know whether she realized "the prospect of potential profitability" through information she was privy to in council executive session discussions.

I spoke with Leos today and he told me he pursued the story after seeing many statements posted by Tenorio herself on various social media outlets in which she claimed ownership of the Kyle Stallions. "In my conversations with her, she held herself out to be an owner of the basketball team," Leos told me. "In fact she also told me she was talking to a prospective new general manager for the team, and you can’t do that unless you’re an owner."

Leos’s story also contained this paragraph: "Because she wasn’t initially prepared to take on the (ownership) role, Tenorio made the call to end the 2016 season early, as she needed time to plan." Only an owner can make such a "call to end the 2016 season early." There is absolutely no reason for Leos to manufacture that statement. I’ve worked alongside Leos long enough to know he would not write that unless Tenorio had told him that.

Which means just one thing: Either Tenorio lied to Leos or she’s lying through her attorney now.

And that’s one of the problems of engaging the services of an attorney in the first place. In a story I wrote this past weekend, I suggested Tenorio should hire a crisis communications consultant. Having been one of those myself for more than 20 years (although I am officially retired and the purpose of that story was not because I was trolling for clients) I know a crisis communications consultant would have advised her to issue a statement along the following lines: "It has come to my attention that a perception might exist in the Kyle community of improprieties involving myself and private discussions held in executive session concerning a pending economic development project. I strongly object and vigorously deny any comments that suggest I engaged in any activities that might be labeled illegal or unethical. However, to remove any doubt concerning my actions I have taken steps to guarantee that the Kyle Stallions basketball team will have absolutely no association with this possible economic development project."

If she had just said something like that, the story is over. Finished. Done. A statement such as the one I proposed above contains absolutely no admission of guilt — just the opposite, in fact, it declares innocence — and it does not even suggest she owns the basketball team because the "steps" referred to are actions she could take quite reasonably as a member of the city council.

But instead of taking that high road Tenorio, through her attorney, petitioned for a declaratory ruling from the ethics commission which effectively removed jurisdiction from the city council to the ethics commission. "Any discussion today is non-sworn, non-binding, and I believe … could possibly influence your independent body that makes these decisions and determinations," City Attorney Frank Garza told the council, arguing the council should stop discussing the matter.

Here’s the problem, however: That doesn't immediately silence official discussion and accusations -- it simply prolongs it through the Ethics Commission procedures and the trouble with that is simply this:  Bad news is like dead fish. The smell doesn’t improve with age.

I hate to even bring this subject to the table, but the ridiculousness of the charges  Pastrano made against Mitchell need to be addressed and refuted. In his letter to Garza, Pastrano writes "Mitchell Family Motor Trikes collected a total of $1,929.66" according to the city’s accounts payable ledgers. He further alleges those payments mean Mitchell violated sections of the Texas Penal Code.

What makes these charges unfounded, at least to these eyes, is because a person, by definition, must have taken some action in order to be charged with committing some form of criminal activity. Mitchell took no action in his role as a city council member in these transactions. They never came before the city council for approval. And even if they had, no criminal activity would be involved if Mitchell had recused himself from any and all council discussions and actions involving such transactions. There is nothing illegal in a city purchasing goods and services from a concern owned by a city council member or official as long as no coercion was involved in the purchases. And Pastrano is not alleging coercion, only that the purchases were made. He is not even alleging the city received some kind of discount not available to anyone else making the same purchases. His allegations make as much sense as saying it would be illegal for any council member to own stock, either directly or through a mutual fund, in an company that manufactures any of the snacks or drinks council members have at their disposal during meetings and workshops.

The only other item to generate any real controversy during last night’s meeting was one that ultimately passed on a 4-3 roll call vote to create a PUD on 35.5 acres located at the northern terminus of Creekside Trail. The controversy was generated by the NIMBY reaction to the project, some of which concentrated on drainage problems residents who live along the road are experiencing — problems that appear to be completely irrelevant to this property because it slopes in the opposite direction, thus draining would flow in the direction of Plum Creek and not down Creekside Trail. One of the more interesting claims (I swear, I’m not making this up) is that the cul-de-sac at which the development plans to locate is already an overnight refuge for motorists leaving San Marcos "who are too drunk to make it to Bastrop." Another one of the NIMBYs actually said they had no objections to a senior living facility "just don’t locate it next to me."

A more pertinent argument involved who would make the necessary improvements to the one lane section of Creekside Trail leading to the development as well as who would pay for these improvements. Ultimately council members Becky Selberra and Shane Arabie voted against the rezoning issue because of these road concerns. Tenorio was a third vote against it but she said she wanted to wait until the residents and the developer could come to terms on a development agreement, a strange thing to say for a couple of reasons. The first is, if she had understood what the NIMBYs were saying during the public hearing on the item, she would realize the residents are not going to agree to any development on that property with the possible exception of another single family residence. The second is, the very next item on the agenda was the approval of another such development agreement and Tenorio cast the only vote against approving that one.

Mitchell said this was one of the toughest zoning decisions he has had to make "in the last two or three months." But the reality, he said, is the city is growing and development is going to happen, not only on this property but on those adjacent to it "Everything I see makes me think the applicant does intend to put in a quality project and all things considered I must side with the applicant," Mitchell said

Council member David Wilson agreed with Mitchell. "The senior living aspect is something that’s in demand in my community," he said. "I hear it from it from friends and family members all the time."

Before this request was originally considered by Planning & Zoning, I visited and took pictures of the site and expressed some concerns of the pond I saw there. It turns out, the applicant said, the pond will serve as a gathering spot for the active seniors who will reside at the facility. That certainly alleviated any concerns I might have had.

In other action last night, the council:

• After admonishing the Planning & Zoning Commission for attaching the same illegal amendment to two separate, but related zoning requests, voted 6-1 to approve the requests to apply R-1-3 residential zoning to land located between Scott Street (immediately west of the Public Library) and Stagecoach Road after removing the offending amendments. Selberra cast the lone no vote after voicing concerns over the effect developing the property would have on flooding on nearby Center Street.
• Postponed hearing a similar rezoning request for property on Beebee Road until March 21, even though the agenda item stated the "applicant is seeking to postpone the request until the March 7 city council meeting." At the conclusion of the meeting, Sellers told me the city received the amended delay request from the applicant just that morning.
• Heard a report from Police Chief Jeff Barnett that the city is as clean as the driven snow on the subject of racial profiling in 2016.

Which acronym do you prefer: HCPUA or ARWA?

OK, the headline poses a trick question because HCPUA is not really an acronym. But, still, I hate it. Not the agency, mind you, just the initials of the organization. I avoid talking about it at all costs out of the fear that, at best, I’ll transpose one or more of the letters or, at worst, I’ll leave one of them out completely. Yessirree, Bob, I’ll take ARWA any ol’ day of the week.

I bring this up for two reasons. First, the HCPUA, which stands for Hays Caldwell Public Utility Agency (which I originally confused as Hays County Public Utility Agency, so I have had this bias for a while now), is a rather important group of which the City of Kyle is a prominent sponsor, along with Buda, San Marcos and the Canyon Regional Water Authority. Kyle City Council member David Wilson currently serves as chair of the HCPUA and its 10-member board includes Mayor Todd Webster and assistant city manager James Earp The second, and the real reason, I bring this up is because I ran across this Notice of Intent today on behalf of the HCPUA to file a bill during the current legislative session to change its name to the Alliance Regional Water Authority or ARWA. Granted, the proposed name change strips the agency of its geographic identity, but, c’mon, you gotta admit ARWA comes off the tongue far more trippingly than HCPUA.

According to the notice of intent, ARWA "would be a conservation district formed to accomplish the purposes of Article 16, Section 59 of the Texas Constitution." For those who are really policy wonks, that article, which bears the title "Navigation Districts," contains a lot of gobbledygook about how these districts are formed, how elections must to be held to establish them, how board members shall be elected before you get down to the nitty-gritty, the section labeled "Powers and Duties," which says: ""A district may be created under this chapter to provide, in or adjacent to its boundaries for (1) the improvement, preservation, and conservation of inland and coastal water for navigation; (2) the control and distribution of storm water and floodwater of rivers and streams in aid of navigation; and (3) any other purposes necessary or incidental to the navigation of inland and coastal water or in aid of these purposes."

Which is somewhat fascinating because the HCPUA currently has absolutely nothing to do with navigating waterways, as far as I can tell, and everything to do with providing water to its sponsors. In fact, right there in its mission statement, it says the HCPUA "was formed in January 2007 for the purpose of resolving the long-term water needs for its Participants." Don’t see anything there relating to "navigation," unless you want to argue the agency has successfully navigated the various ways to get waters from places where it is to places where it isn’t, but is desperately needed.

I also bring this up because, although residents of Kyle are not talking all that much about HCPUA or ARWA now, they will. And probably sooner than they would want to. They will start talking about it on or possibly even a little before they start receiving water bills that are in the neighborhood of $25 higher per month and increase even more as the months wear on. Those higher water bills are needed to pay the HCPUA’s or ARWA’s capital improvement project involving a "pipeline and pump station interconnecting the Kyle and Buda water systems. The facilities are anticipated to be used in the short-term to provide for interim water sharing and will also eventually serve as the delivery infrastructure of the Carrizo water to Buda. The pipeline will be sized to handle the full anticipated flow to Buda. The pump station will allow for expansion to provide the full contract delivery amount to Buda." That may not sound like a big deal, but it is. The pipeline, alone, is budgeted to cost nearly $7.5 million and the pump station another $12 million. That’s $19.5 million and, like Trump’s border wall, we’re going to have to pay for it. And I don’t expect the name change to make it any cheaper.

Nevertheless, I still like it. ARWA. Say it to yourself. Then try to pronounce HCPUA. It’s really no contest.

Wilson, Mitchell oppose efforts by state senator to cut roll back rate

Council members David Wilson and Travis Mitchell oppose the efforts of a Houston state senator to trigger roll back elections if cities or counties proposed a 4 percent or greater property tax increase, with Wilson arguing the legislator’s plan does not address the biggest segment of a taxpayer’s bill.

Earlier this week, Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, unveiled Senate Bill 2 which would, if approved, automatically trigger roll back elections in which voters could not only nix any proposed property tax increase of 4 percent or more, but actually "roll back" taxes to below the current rate. Currently, a proposed property tax increase of 8 percent or more would trigger such an election.

Bettencourt’s proposal would only affect proposed city or county tax increases, and that’s where Wilson has major heartburn with the proposal because it exempts school taxes, which, by themselves, comprise more than 50 percent of a taxpayer’s bill.

"I am a supporter of property tax relief for all Texans as a basic concept," Wilson said in response to an e-mail I sent to all city council members seeking their reaction to Bettencourt’s proposal. "Senate Bill 2 does not appear to address the fundamental property tax issue for our state which is funding of public education. They chose instead to address city taxes which accounts for some 16 percent of the property tax collection."

Wilson posed the rhetorical question "What are city taxes used for?" and then answered it.

"Most city budgets are heavy weighted on police, fire and EMS as those are the key public safety responsibilities," he wrote. "The remainder of the budgets are used to build and repair roads, improve and maintain parks (quality of life) and maintain basic city services.

"With what I know about the bill with it's provisions, I am not in support of it as I believe that if it is passed as it currently filed that it would damage the ability of a city to provide for public safety and other critical responsibilities expected by people that live in those cities," Wilson concluded.

Mitchell argued it was "hypocritical" of the state to act in a way toward local government entities and then complain when the federal government acts in exactly the same way toward the state.

"While I agree with the concerns of State Senator Bettencourt about rising property tax bills, I vehemently disagree with the state legislature restricting the rights of cities to set their own rate," Mitchell wrote. "It is hypocritical of our legislature to impose their will upon municipalities because they are famous for fighting Washington over similar measures to restrict state's rights."

One other council member told me conflicts of interest prohibited him from replying to my request. I did not receive a reply from the other four members of the council.

Council approves police contract, heaps praise on city manager

Just in the nick of time, the Kyle City Council unanimously approved a contract with the police union association today after which several council members lauded the performance of City Manager Scott Sellers, saying, in effect, they hoped he would remain in his current position indefinitely.

The council’s action to approve the labor contract with the Police Department came just a little more than 13 hours before its deadline to reach such an agreement, the start of FY 2016-17.

Details of what, under terms specified in something called the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, is known as a meet-and-confer agreement were not immediately made public. However, the City of San Antonio, to cite just one example, posts a copy of its meet-and-confer agreement on its web site and I have sent an e-mail to Kyle’s director of Human Resources to do the same or to find some other way to make the document public. The purpose of Chapter 10 of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, which calls for meet and confer, is "to promote full communication between public employers and their employees by providing a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment between public employers and public employee organizations."

While various city council members seemed rather happy about the outcome of the negotiations, a representative of the Kyle Police Association, who identified himself to me as "Officer Pruitt, vice president of the KPA," seemed somewhat less enthusiastic while remaining outwardly reserved.

"There are things we would still like to discuss with (the city)," Pruitt told me when I asked if he was "happy" with the contract. "But I would probably need to get with my board before I spoke more about it, before I put out any kind of statement."

That reservation, as I mentioned earlier, was not shared by many of those on the council.

"I’m happy with the contract," Mayor Pro Tem Damon Fogley said. "Our heart is with the Police Department and we want to set that bar for re-hires and to make sure we have pay parity with surrounding communities. So I’m really happy with this contract moving forward."

"I think it’s clear that the council as a whole likes the Police Department," council member David Wilson said. "They want the Police Department to be as good as it can and, to do that, you’ve got to fund. I’m happy to make that motion" to approve the contract."

Wilson indicated approval of the agreement was not as unanimous among members of the Police Association as it was with the council. In fact, he went out of his way to say it was approved by "the majority," but by no means all members of the association.

Mayor Todd Webster acknowledged he was the council’s representative in the negotiating process. He said the negotiations were never "adversarial" and were conducted "in good faith." Webster acknowledged that many members of the association might be somewhat less than thrilled with the outcome because they "certainly didn’t get everything they asked for." But, he said, he hoped "the officers in the department understand there really is a commitment on our part to support them and to have a professional, well-run Police Department."

Following its 57-minute executive session, during which the council was briefed by its attorney on the meet and confer and a contract with the Kyle Chamber of Commerce as well as continuing Sellers’s annual performance evaluation, the council reconvened to not only make effusive comments about the city manager but to express its collective desire to keep him in his current position.

"The council is very happy with the city manager’s performance and the direction the city is headed," Mayor Webster said. "You’ve exceeded our expectations and it’s important that we say that publicly. We have started conversations about extending your contract."

The mayor said he hoped the council’s next regularly scheduled meeting, on Oct. 18, or the meeting after that, Nov. 1, will contain an item to approve a contract extension.

"I’m very pleased with what I’m getting and you’re accessible as well," Wilson added. "In particular, I like your ability to reach out beyond our borders. I run into people independently — somebody who says something positive about you. That’s a positive thing for our area and our community."

Fogley called Sellers "a great motivator and a great personnel manager. The employees who work here appreciate your leadership and are highly motivated to work with you, so I appreciate that."

Council member Daphne Tenorio, who has been critical of city staff in the past, acknowledged today that "communications have gotten so much better. I’m really appreciating the fact that you have been so accessible. I really appreciate the fact that we have been able to solve problems without having to go to the well of the taxpayers for more money. And I really appreciate the fact that you are leading the city in the direction I think we need to go, especially when we’re experiencing such rapid growth. I’m very pleased with the direction in which we’re heading."

Council member Travis Mitchell said he hoped "we’re going to find a way to keep you here long term" and joked he would be willing to "road block the exits" to prevent Sellers from leaving, which forced Webster to reply that the current conversation was "not precipitated by his coming in and saying he was planning on leaving. This is on the council’s initiative."

In other action the council:

• Initially deferred taking an action on renewing Wells Fargo Bank’s lease on the plot of ground immediately north of City Hall where the bank hosts an ATM machine because, as Mitchell pointed out, the agreement contained no language referencing termination of the contract. After it came out of executive session, during which time the council inserted a penalty-free, 90-day termination clause, the council approved the lease agreement 6-0 (council member Becky Selberra was formally excused from this council meeting due to work-related conflicts).
• Also deferred action on a new contract for providing funds for the Chamber of Commerce until its Dec. 6 meeting because, in Webster’s words, the council is "trying to figure out an appropriate way to handle this." Chamber CEO Julie Snyder and other chamber officials beseeched the council during citizen comments period to approve a pending contract, but their pleas went unheeded. Snyder left the council chambers while I was talking to Officer Pruitt about the meet and confer agreement, but I have reached out to her via e-mail to see if she’ll provide a reaction to the council’s inaction.
• Heard Sellers talk about a new medical insurance option for city employees which has absolutely no effect on tax rates, public expenditures, etc. — is strictly an internal matter — and, as such, not worth of going into detail about here.

“There was a big mistake made somewhere”

Admitting the city was "culpable" in a massive governmental bureaucratic kerfuffle that resulted in a local corporation facing a major overdue tax bill, the City Council took action Tuesday night to correct the situation, thus paving the way for a possible addition of 82 new professional jobs in Kyle, and then later passed a series of measures that could result in the location of a linen-cleaning business in North Kyle that could mean another 223 new jobs.

Put your abacus away. It works out to a total of 305 new jobs in one meeting. That’s a significant shot of economic adrenalin. But it did not come easy and it did not come without some serious soul searching from one city council member.

The "bureaucratic kerfuffle" I referred to above concerns RSI which set up shop in Kyle in 2007 on land that was owned by the city. That land was, in the words of City Manager Scott Sellers, "transitioned" from the city to RSI in 2011.

"When the property transitioned to RSI’s ownership in 2011, they reached out through their annual tax process with their CPA to pay the tax obligation to the local tax entities on the real property," Sellers told the council. "At the time they were told by the county, also probably by the city, there was indeed no tax obligation for the real property due at that time."

The same thing happened in 2012, 2013 and 2014. RSI kept asking about its tax bill and were told by the county it didn’t have a tax bill. But this year, Sellers said, the city "uncovered" the fact that, indeed, RSI not only had a tax bill for 2015 but actually owed back taxes from 2011 through to the present.

"We immediately notified Hays County and verified that a mistake had been made," Sellers said.

On its end, RSI has been bidding on large contracts that involved a significant research and development investment. "Because of that, RSI was not able to pay the full burden of the property tax they were faced with and appealed to the city for assistance," Sellers said.

Sellers indicated that during the last eight months, the city has been in meetings with Hays County to see if the back taxes could just be forgiven, since RSI was pretty much blameless in the whole mess. Sellers said the two parties could not find a way legally to do that. "The tax note, statutorily, would be due," he said. "So we tried to find a way to assist the company to remain viable with its tax note looming." Together with the Greater San Marcos Partnership, he said, they looked at "a job creation and retention incentive for the company."

RSI is bidding on a number of large contracts and if it lands any one of them it could mean a significant number of new jobs. However, RSI has facilities in many other locations and there was no guarantee those jobs would come to Kyle. So, to convince RSI to locate those 82 jobs here over the next 10 years, the county and the city have each pledged $123,000 for an incentive package.

"So what we are looking at tonight is an incentive package, combined with a direct loan to the company," Sellers said. "RSI will agree to pay the 2015 tax obligation. The additional tax obligation, while being paid by RSI, there is going to be a loan made by the city to the company. There will be a $123,000 commitment up-front from the City of Kyle, which equals $1,500 per job over the next 10 years. Hays County will match that $123,000. The incentive states that at the end of each fiscal year, the city will sit down, audit the number of jobs and insure a correct pro-rata of jobs have been created for the year. If not, the incentive is returned.

"There is also a $234,000 up front loan also being proposed as part of this package that would be an interest-free loan, payable beginning 2018 for 10 years," the city manager added.

Mayor Todd Webster acknowledged to Sellers the city "shared culpability for this error. There was some confusion around the (2010) transition of administrations from the (Tom ) Mattis period into the (Lanny) Lambert era, where there were things that just didn’t get picked up. There was the Bunton Creek PID issue and this is very much like that. But my sense is that the city bears some responsibility for the mistake. It’s not clear how such a big mistake occurred but the fact is it went on long enough that we could have lost one of the most important members of our business community. That led to me hoping you guys could come up with something to try to salvage this situation. There was a big mistake made somewhere. Whose mistake it was doesn’t matter, but I’m appreciative of the work you have done to figure out how to solve it."

Council member Travis Mitchell, who arguably had more hands-on responsibility for shaping the final agreement than any other council member, said the deal contained "three layers."

"One is an existing tax obligation," he said. "Not a tax obligation from the past, but a current bill that is now due that recognizes previous taxes were not properly billed to the employer. That’s different than saying they were billed and they chose not to pay. The second layer to it is who’s responsible. No business owner can escape culpability in that situation. However, we do have documented evidence that the property owner did try to pay the property taxes, did inquire multiple times through the years about paying those taxes and were told there was not a bill. That is an error. He did have a bill, but it was not properly given to him. The way I see it culpability lies on behalf of the business owner to know better and on the city and the county for making the error in the first place. The third layer is the incentive that’s on top of the first two issues and that incentive is our opportunity to make some of this right without putting the business in a very difficult position"

Mitchell said the ultimate result is that "RSI is getting a very small incentive to double in size in our target market with the best sector jobs that we can hope for in this town. They are also being forced to repay those taxes but are not having to do it lump sum right up front which no business of that size could afford."

The motion to pass the measure passed 5-1 on a roll call vote (council member David Wilson was out of town) with council member Daphne Tenorio casting the one dissenting vote. When council member Shane Arabie’s name was called during the vote, he paused for a considerable length of time before voting in favor of the deal. After the meeting I asked him about the pause and he told me "We’ve been negotiating for nine months and at the end the deal changed and it became something I didn’t necessarily agree with. I agree with economic development incentives, but I didn’t agree with the way it went at the end, the loan portion. I don’t agree with an up-front loan. I don’t believe we should be in the business of loaning money." In the end, however, he said he felt the positives — 82 new jobs — outweighed the negatives.

The vote came after an hour and 54-minute executive session that came at the beginning of the meeting, right after the citizen comments period. Council member Becky Selberra slipped out of the meeting shortly after the vote was taken at around 9:40 p.m., which is the reason all the subsequent votes totaled five.

The second economic development proposal involved the location of an approximately 20,000-square-foot-plus linen cleaning facility planned for the business park being developed across Kohler’s Crossing from the Home Depot. The four items on the agenda covering this project, each of which the council passed unanimously, provided for the application of a $1 million grant that would be used for the construction of a wastewater pipeline to service the facility.

In other action Tuesday night, the council:

• Received a progress report on all five road bond projects that I will write more about tomorrow after I get some much-needed sleep.
• Asked Police Chief Jeff Barnett to rethink his idea of renewing a lease on three Harley-Davidson motorcycles to determine (1) whether it would be more prudent economically to purchase and not lease, and (2) whether Harley-Davidson is really the best brand option.
• Unanimously passed on first reading amendments to those sections of the city’s code that have to do with impervious surfaces after determining that cement swimming pools are not impervious. The most interesting thing about the discussion on this issue, however, was the prediction from Mayor Webster that "sometime down the road," residential stormwater fees will be determined by the amount of impervious surface on a resident’s property.
• Unanimously passed on first reading amendments to the landscape ordinance.
• Unanimously passed on first reading an ordinance that would more equitably distribute the costs of constructing water and wastewater systems among various developers.
• Voted 4-1 (Tenorio voting "no") to contribute $10,000 to pay the city’s share for a study to determine the feasibility of constructing a regional wastewater treatment plant somewhere in the Blanco River basin.
• Unanimously approved an agreement to provide retail water and wastewater services to the Anthem Development.
• Adjourned at 11:26 p.m.

City to create stormwater utility in 13 days but fees may not be imposed until next year

The city council finished tinkering with the city manager’s proposed budget tonight, adding a provision to start a process toward creating a veterans’ memorial in Kyle but leaving intact the provision to create a much-needed stormwater utility. A stormwater fee schedule, however, still has to clear a couple of hurdles and at least one council member said tonight it may not begin to be included in homeowners’ water bills until the beginning of 2017.

All that’s left, in terms of approving the budget and the accompanying tax rate, is for the city’s ordinance writers to take City Manager Scott Sellers’s proposed budget, adjust it according to the amendments made tonight and a week ago tonight by individual council members, and put it in the form of an ordinance or two. That (those) ordinance(s) will have a first reading a week from tonight and a second and final reading Tuesday, Sept. 6.

The creation of the stormwater utility was part of Sellers’s original proposal and although the council talked about the fees that will be required to pay for it, those fees will not be a part of the ordinance(s) to be enacted during the next 13 days.

"The fee will not be set per the fee schedule in this budget," Sellers told the council tonight. "When a stormwater utility is set by state statute it has to go through certain notification and public hearing requirements. So the council gives direction to staff to begin that process and that could be tonight. We will also have other opportunities to have those hearings and the final adoption on that fee will come by an ordinance."

Stormwater guru Kathy Roecker, whose title will change officially from "guru" to "director" when the budget kicks in Oct. 1 (although I may choose to continue to refer to her as "guru" simply because Webster proclaims that word should apply to "an acknowledged advocate."), provided the council with a more specific timetable.

""At least 30 days prior, the city must publish in the paper the first notice of a public hearing to consider the adoption of a proposed rate charge," she said. "After the first public notice, the city must publish two additional newspaper notices prior to the hearing, but not necessarily 30 days as with the first notice. The public notices must contain the time/place of the hearing and contain the complete text of the proposed charge."

That means the earliest the notice could be published in the Hays Free Press would be in its Sept. 1 edition, which translates into the first public hearing being held in October, presumably at the council’s Oct. 4 meeting. Whether that Oct. 4 meeting would contain a public hearing on the actual proposed ordinance for the fee is debatable, but, giving the benefit of the doubt that it does, that means the second reading would come Oct. 18 . I would imagine the ordinance may provide at least a 60-day grace/education period, meaning the fees would start being imposed in January, 2017. I mentioned that schedule to one council person who preferred to remain unidentified and than council member told me early 2017 was probably a fairly accurate guestimate.

It’s also fairly certain that the ordinance that will come before the council next Wednesday will contain a tax rate that’s a penny lower than the current rate of $.5848 per $100 valuation, which might come as a shock to those who complained tonight during citizens comments that they were being "priced out of their homes." If that is indeed the case it’s because the value of their property has increased (which a savvy investor would argue is a good thing), but not because of higher tax rates. And there is little doubt that property values in this area are appreciating rapidly.

In fact, because of higher than anticipated property valuations, the city discovered last week it had $518,500 more available to them than originally anticipated. Through a series of amendments from individual council members last week, that amount was whittled down to $63,500. Council member David Wilson originally proposed to take $25,000 of that toward the seed funding of a process that would lead to the creation of a Veterans Memorial somewhere in Kyle. Mayor Todd Webster initially objected to the idea, not because he was opposed to the memorial, but because the money would sit encumbered without being used at all until the next fiscal year at the earliest.

But Mayor Pro Tem Damon Fogley offered to amend a proposal he made last week which was to take $25,000 from that original $518,500 to fund a rescue boat for the Kyle Fire Department. Fogley said he discovered during the course of this past week that the actual cost of the boat was $15,000 and the other $10,000 was to be used to pay for training. As a policy, the council has approved capital expenditures for the Kyle Fire Department, but not operating expenses since KFD technically is not a part of city government. So initially, Fogley offered to reduce his rescue boat amendment by $10,000 and give those funds to Wilson to add more money for the memorial. Instead, hearing what Webster said about encumbered funds that are not used during the course of the fiscal year, Wilson just decided to ask for Fogley’s $10,000 to be set aside.

"I was listening to you," Wilson told the mayor, "but this $10,000 is an important placeholder and we will generate private funds to supplement that."

Wilson’s proposal was approved 5-2. Council member Daphne Tenorio said she voted against it because Wilson’s idea was still in the concept stage and she wanted to see a concrete proposal before she would vote for it. Council member Travis Mitchell voted against it, as he voted against all the amendments that took money from this fund, because he wanted to keep it as "a buffer" in case sales taxes fell as far below expectations during the upcoming fiscal year as they have this year.

For the second week in a row, no one appeared to speak during the public hearings on the budget or the tax rate, although six persons addressed these items, at least peripherally, during citizens comments. Of the six, only two observed the three-minute limit that’s supposed to be imposed on speakers during this period and two of the six speakers, Dave Douglas and Kay Rush (who was absolutely clueless about how festivals and monument signs are being funded in the budget), hogged the speaker’s podium for more than five minutes each.

On the positive side, this was only a five-item agenda and so the entire meeting only took an hour and 46 minutes and that included a 31-minute executive session.