First random observation: The council hosted a presentation on the progress of relocating the railroad siding that way-too-often forces trains to come to a dead stop that blocks all traffic at the Center Street crossing. Three years ago, funds were identified to pay Union Pacific what it would cost to relocate that siding to a place beginning just north of the Burleson Road crossing to just north of where Kohlers Crossing crosses the track. Not only that, additional funds are being sought to build a Kohlers Crossing overpass so that the trains will not block that roadway once the siding relocation is complete. During the presentation and ensuing council question-and-answer session we learned (1) construction on the project is set to begin in 2023; (2) that many residents in the Creekside Village subdivision between Burleson and Plum Creek whose homes abut the tracks are upset because the siding relocation will necessitate the temporary removal of backyard fences (a Union Pacific spokesperson promised the railroad would replace those fences with better ones once construction is complete); and (3) that the siding’s relocation is dependent on money being available to construct the Kohlers Crossing overpass.
But the one question I wanted answered — and, I firmly believe, the question on the minds of most residents, especially those who drive through downtown Kyle — was “when will trains no longer block Center Street?” Personally, I don’t expect it to happen in my lifetime, but, still, it would be nice to have a target date on when traffic flow might normalize in that heavily trafficked section of the city. And no one on the council asked this question. I wonder if any of them even thought to ask this most important question on this subject.
Second random observation: “I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like.” That statement has been the caption of a famous New Yorker cartoon. It has been the title of a book written by someone I know little about, Marjorie Bull. It has been repeated ad nauseam by visitors to art galleries and exhibitions. And it was what was running through my mind the entire time the council was talking about the idea of forming an Arts Commission.
Each and every council member has a completely different idea about what a municipal Arts Commission is all about. And the answer is really simple. All it takes is a couple of different steps. The first is to identify a constant municipal funding source to underwrite the arts — in whatever shape it might take — in the city. One suggestion: Permanently dedicate .2 percent of the city’s annual CIP budget each fiscal year to arts funding (since art, especially the installation of art in public places, is intrinsically tied to infrastructure projects). Another suggestion: Pass an ordinance that sets aside 1 to 2 percent of the city’s Hotel Occupancy Taxes collected each year for arts expenditures.
Once this preliminary funding is identified, then and only then should the city create an Arts Commission whose tasks will be to (1) identify and solicit public and private grants/contributions to subsidize and enhance the city’s contribution to arts funding (i.e., grants from the National Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the Humanities); (2) determine if a particular project is eligible for a state tax credit for historic renovation; (3) create a 501(c)(3) to administer the public art program, so that donated monies could be used tax-free and would represent taxable deductions for donors; (4) hold public meetings during which arts patrons seeking money from the city for art projects for Kyle can argue for their projects to receive public funding; (5) debate and vote on which of these projects should receive city funds; and ultimately (6) make formal recommendations to the council on at least a quarterly basis on how the money in the “arts fund” should be spent.
Tuesday night’s discussion was focused almost exclusively on buying statues or sculptures to place at various sites around the city. Sure. Fine, Whatever. But you don’t need an Arts Commission for that. All you need is an arts consultant. The reason you need an Arts Commission is for that time when a group of Lehman High School graduates who went away to, say, ballet school, and then returned to Kyle, got together and came up with the idea of trying to establish a ballet company in Kyle. Is that something the city should invest in? Kyle having its own ballet company could conceivably attract visitors to the city if done correctly and it would be up to the Arts Commission to determine if it would be done correctly. Personally, I would love to see the day when a group of citizens got together to form a community theater here in Kyle. Such an endeavor should not be financed solely through the funds recommended by the Arts Commission, but the commission could recommend a proper amount for the city to invest to get the project up and running as well as possible additional funding annually.
The Arts Commission should also be tasked to working in tandem with Economic Development to develop incentives for developers to commission works of art for their projects. The commission can show how such public/private partnerships can benefit developers by (1) improving employee and tenant working environments; (2) creating a unique look or landmark feature for the project; (3) demonstrating a larger civic commitment; and (4) translating into higher rents and a more desirable office location. And then the commission could also offer recommendations for specific installations.
Another discussion involved whether members of the Arts Commission should be restricted to residents of the city and its ETJ. I would vehemently argue against this. I should think selection process for commission members should give extra weight to local residents, but, when it comes to something like “expertise in the arts,” why limit yourself? Why restrict the ability to have expertise solely on geographical grounds? If there’s another Charles Umlauf anywhere in Central Texas and that person would like to serve on Kyle’s Art Commission, I would definitely welcome that expertise, regardless of where that person called home.
Third random observation: I’m not totally convinced everyone on the City Council completely understands the municipal budgeting process. This thought struck me during the council’s debate on finding the money in the budget for two additional police officers.
Let me backtrack here for a second. During the last budget workshop, on July 31, Chief of Police Jeff Barnett told the council the city could hire two more police officers and they could be hired without taking money from any other expenditure proposed by the city manager. For instance, he said, during the height of the 2020 COVID pandemic, the state placed a moratorium on requiring motorists to have their vehicles pass an annual inspection. As a result, the city could no longer ticket motorists for expired inspection stickers. That moratorium has expired, so the city can commence writing those tickets again, potentially increasing the amount of fines from those tickets that flow into the city’s coffers over what was collected this fiscal year. Additionally, Barnett told the council that more motorists are on the roads again and more motorists translates into more traffic violations which, again, translates into potentially more fines. All in all, Barnett said, the amount of money the city will see in increased revenue from fines during the upcoming fiscal year as compared to the amount collected this year will more than pay for the new officers. Council member Dex Ellisson didn’t like this one bit, saying “This is anticipated revenue, not actual revenue.” What??? The entire city budget – the entire budget of any municipality in Texas that must adopt balanced budgets — is based on anticipated revenue. The budget is 100 percent dependent on expert prognostications of “How much money do we anticipate we will collect this fiscal year in ad valorem taxes, how much do we expect to collect in sales taxes, how much in fines, fees, franchises, etc.” It’s never about how much money does the city currently have in the bank, but how much do we anticipate coming in during the 365 days commencing Oct. 1. A significant inflationary spiral hitting the country could slash local sales tax revenues by as much as a double-digit percentage. Admittedly, I have not heard of any economists predicting a period of widespread inflation in the coming years such as the one that hit us early this century, but, then two years ago I had not heard any medical experts predicting a worldwide pandemic either.
A second thing that seems to be outside the grasp of city council members is when they are talking about budget expenditures, that discussion is not — NOT — about actually spending money. It’s only about setting aside money to be spent sometime in the future. Council members were debating as those budgeting $200,000 for additional police officers actually meant the city was going to spend $200,000 for additional police officers during the upcoming fiscal year. The only way that could conceivably happen is if the additional police officers managed to have somehow graduated from the police academy, be hired by the city, and be on the job by Oct. 1 and, folks, that isn’t possible. So while philosophical discussions about quotas and what’s wrong with quotas might be enlightening and worthwhile (and those arguments were certainly featured and constantly reiterated during Tuesday night’s debate), they have absolutely no bearing or relevance in a budget discussion. Whether the money comes from property taxes, fines, franchise fees, overdue library books, sales taxes — whatever — it all goes into big a stewpot called the General Fund and what the council decided Tuesday night is beginning this fiscal year and continuing until some future council says otherwise, the city is going to set aside the money required each year to pay for four more patrolmen for the Kyle Police Department along with the patrol car and whatever other equipment they may need. And, as long as the patrolmen are currently making what is specified in the current civil service contract, the city anticipates that amount is going to be approximately $200,000 a year. Now, it’s also possible that in upcoming years, when much of their equipment will already be paid for, the cost of those four officers will be somewhat less. That doesn’t mean an adjustment in the $200,000 is required or even necessary; it could simply mean more money will be available in the city’s cash reserves. But that’s probably way more information than anyone needs to know, except, of course, for our representatives on the council. I really wish they knew this.
