Anthem developer proposes new water deal

The Kyle City Council is scheduled to consider Tuesday evening a proposal from Clark Wilson, the developer of the proposed 673-acre Anthem subdivision located about a mile northwest of the intersection of FM 150 and RR 2770 in Mountain’s City’s extra-territorial jurisdiction, that would call for Kyle to sell water and wastewater services to Anthem through infrastructure provided and paid for by Anthem.

The proposal would presumably replace a far more complicated proposed Interlocal Agreement that would have ultimately led to Anthem being annexed by the City of Kyle. Under Wilson’s latest proposal, Anthem would remain in Mountain City’s ETJ under the terms of a Development Agreement signed in December 2014 by Wilson and Mountain City Mayor Tiffany Carnutt. The proposed Interlocal Agreement created a political turmoil in Mountain City, arising from the fact that many of that community’s residents did not want Kyle to annex the subdivision.

Prior to considering Wilson’s latest proposal, the Kyle City Council is supposed to rescinding approval of the ILA with Mountain City and Hays County, which could be moot anyway because, the way I understand it, Hays County withdrew from the deal several months ago and was replaced by the City of Dripping Springs.

Under the terms of the agreement, Mountain City 150, a limited partnership Wilson formed when he signed the original Development Agreement with Mountain City, "at its own cost and expense, will construct a potable water distribution system" so that Kyle can provide water services to the estimated 1,900 residences in the project as well as "wastewater improvements and all necessary facilities to allow (Kyle) to provide retail wastewater services to the customers." Presumably, although it’s not actually stated in Wilson’s proposal, Kyle would bill the customers directly for the water and wastewater services.

In addition, Wilson would, through MC 150, pay Kyle "funds to assist in financing offsite improvements, including expansion of the city’s wastewater treatment plant," which, depending on the amount he plans to chip in, could be just the sweetener needed for the council to look favorably on the deal. Wilson’s proposal says "The amount, timing of payment and all details shall be included in a binding retail water and wastewater services agreement."

If agreed to, the agreement could end a lot of the current friction that exists among the neighboring communities of Kyle, Mountain City and, lately, Buda, which has expressed its dissatisfaction with a deal Kyle is trying to negotiate involving the Dahlstrom Ranch, property the city needed to acquire in order to legally annex Anthem, but may not be needed under this latest proposal. It would also appease local critics who argued Kyle did not need to add such a large chunk of residential property owners to the city’s tax rolls because the property tax burden already falls too heavily on homeowners.

There is no public hearing attached to either agenda item — the one to rescind the ILA and the companion piece to approve Wilson’s latest offer — so any citizen wishing to speak for or against either issue will have to do so during the public comment section that begins the 7 p.m. council session.

As reported earlier, the City Council will not consider Tuesday a zoning change that could have resulted in a truck stop in South Kyle, but it is expected to consider:

• Much needed additional emphasis on storm water management including elevating it to an actual utility, under a proposed ordinance amendment, and levying punishments against those who pollute the storm water system. As part of this, the council could consider the concept of Limited Impact Districts in Kyle, which would go a long way to make the city greener in terms of water and energy conservation.
• Council member Becky Selberra’s request for a "discussion on smoking ordinance," which presumably has to do with Section 23-182 of Ordinance 334 which states "It shall be unlawful for any person within the city limits, in any way, to intentionally or carelessly burn or cause to be burned any combustibles which causes noxious smoke or smoke of a significant quantity or quality to be released so as to inhibit the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties is hereby declared a nuisance and is hereby prohibited." I have, however, unsuccessfully tried to find any ordinance regarding smoking by citizens in public facilities so perhaps she wants to talk about that. Your guess is as good as mine on this one. I have reached out to council member Selberra requesting she provide me some specifics.
• Council member Diane Hervol’s request to learn about and make public the city’s plans to provide public transportation for those citizens, many of whom are elderly, who relied on Austin’s Cap Metro before the city terminated that contract late last year.
• The disposition, delivered as part of the city manager’s report, of a lawsuit between the city and Dr. Glen Hurlston of Princeton, Texas, who sued both the cities of Princeton and Kyle in federal court alleging Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett abused his powers by ordering Hurlston’s arrest for the domestic abuse of his then-wife, Suzanne, who gave birth to a child fathered by Barnett.

Conversation with Mountain City mayor about that semi-forgotten ILA

That interlocal agreement among the cites of Kyle and Mountain City along with Hays County was the subject of some intense debates and lively meetings back in June, but it seems to have faded from the public interest of late.

So I asked someone for whom I have a lot of respect, Mountain City Mayor Tiffany Curnutt, what's the latest on the deal. Here is the gist of that conversation.

Kyle Report: Is it dead?

Mayor Carnutt: No, it’s still in negotiations. We’re still working on it.

Kyle Report: Do you think an agreement might be reached?

Mayor Carnutt: To be determined. I think we are coming to a version that can be proposed to our council but I can't guarantee that it will pass.

Kyle Report: What is the status of Anthem now that the ILA appears to be, at least, stalled?

Mayor Carnutt: It's been a work in progress and hasn't actually stalled. However, we haven't put a new version out there for our council and residents to review yet since it almost had to be completely rewritten after the first draft was provided by the county and I think we all knew it would take some time. Especially since Mountain City doesn't have full time legal resources. Also, we are taking our time with it to be sure that we take everything into consideration for the future of Mountain City. So this also takes time and we wanted to be sure that the version proposed is something presentable to our council and residents, though it may require additional tweaking or modifications once proposed

Kyle Report: What action, if any, is Mountain City prepared to take on this matter?

Mayor Carnutt: We haven't put the item on the agenda to take action at this point. We will wait for the next version to complete before we put it back on the agenda. And we also want to be sure that our residents and council all have ample time to review. We have some great resources in the city and they may catch something that we didn't."

The mayor added that Mountain City’s next city council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 12, "We haven’t created a final agenda for this meeting," the mayor said, "but the action item may be incorporated if it’s presentable prior to then."

It is worth noting that the ILA is scheduled to be a part of the proposed executive session at Wednesday's Kyle City Council meeting.

Mountain City votes to continue haggling over “sale” price

Update and correction: I have updated and corrected this item to reflect the fact that Mountain City Mayor Curnutt did not say the $500-per-lot payment from Anthem to Mountain City should be part of the ILA. She did say, as she pointed out in an e-mail to me, that this would be a part of a separate agreement between Mountain City and Anthem Development. I stand corrected on that point.
-----------
A developer wants to place a comparatively high-end subdivision on land that’s part of Mountain City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Problem is the subdivision has no guaranteed source for water. So the City of Kyle stepped in and said it will extend its water and wastewater lines north to the subdivision, sell the residents its water and carry its wastewater south to Kyle’s wastewater treatment plant. It also threw in a few other goodies. In return, Kyle would take control of Mountain City’s ETJ and eventually annex it into Kyle so the property taxes of those in the subdivision can help pay for the infrastructure extensions. To sweeten the deal for Mountain City, Hays County jumped in and said it would pay to build new roads for Mountain City if Mountain City paid for the materials needed to build them. A document was prepared reflecting all this and that document is called an Interlocal Agreement (ILA).

That’s a simplified synopsis of the deal, but it hits the important parts.

The residents of Mountain City, however, don’t like the deal. Not one bit. And, as evidenced by a town hall meeting held a week ago last night, these residents are divided into two camps: One that doesn’t want to give up the ETJ under any conditions and a second that is willing to give it up, but not under the provisions as outlined in the current ILA. It was that second group that showed up last night at Mountain City’s City Council meeting that ended with the council unanimously approving a motion to continue negotiating with Kyle and Hays County for what it feels is a better deal, although neither Mountain City Mayor Tiffany Curnutt nor Mayor Pro Tem Phillip Taylor wanted to express confidence that an agreement will ever be reached.

The residents who attended last night’s council meeting do not view the action Mountain City might take as trading its ETJ. They call it "selling" the land in question and they are after a better sale price. In fact, Mayor Curnutt said she and Taylor met with Kyle City Manager Scott Sellers, Hays County Commissioner Will Conley, Anthem developer Clark Wilson and others for "about an hour" yesterday to discuss with them "If we were going to sell – I think that’s a good term – the ETJ what would make it worth our while."

To that end, she said, an attorney representing Mountain City will, in Mayor Curnutt’s words, "take first stab" at drafting an entirely new ILA which will be presented to Kyle and Hays County officials. She did not refer to this pending new document as a take-it-or-leave-it proposal, however, just the next step in the negotiating process.

Now I’m not an impartial observer in this discussion. Because I am a resident of Kyle, I want what’s best for the city in which I live and my observations on last night’s discussion are going to be filtered through that lens.

For example, I’m going to mention one of the last ideas broached last night first and that is the ILA should state if, for any reason, the subdivision, presently known as Anthem, doesn’t come to fruition, the ETJ would be returned to Mountain City. On the surface, that might sound reasonable, but there’s a chicken-egg question going on here. I will argue that once Kyle begins constructing the water and wastewater lines extensions, the ETJ remains in Kyle’s possession regardless of the fate of Anthem. Besides, the owner of the property says development is going to take place on that land, whether it’s called Anthem or Antler or Antares or Antebellum or Antediluvian or Antepenultimate or even Anticlimax. Something’s going to be constructed on that land and soon and, whatever it is, it will need water. Now, if Anthem becomes a no-go before construction begins, I see no reason Mountain City can’t reclaim its ETJ, although I would hope Kyle leaders become reluctant to enter into any further ILAs over it. Let Mountain City deal with it.

Another provision Mountain City wants as part of a revised ILA is that only that part of the ETJ that will be occupied by Anthem would be part of the deal. That would mean, as someone explained it to me last night, that instead of a 10-foot wide swath of land separating the city limits of Mountain City and Kyle, there would be a 50-foot separation, a separation Mountain City said it would like to use for a hike and bike trail. That one sounds rather reasonable to me.

"We may have to incorporate some language to the effect if signs or other structures are built they would have to fall within Kyle’s requirements as well," Curnutt said. "For example they don’t allow the pillar signs. So they don’t want any 70-foot pillar signs. So we would have to mutually agree on whatever signs are placed there."

Then she mentioned something that I had a problem with and that’s the development agreement that currently exists between Anthem and Mountain City.

"If Kyle were to adopt the development agreement as it stands or perhaps make it more stringent – whatever that means – but if they’re going to do that, it has to be outlined," the mayor said. "It may be better for them but we don’t consider it better." For example, she cited, Kyle Mayor Todd Webster "had mentioned all the homes in Plum Creek … are not our standards of masonry. Hardy plank, in our own minds, is not considered masonry. So that was one thing we talked about. Hardy plank is not going to work for us."

She also said the "timing was really weird" on when the property would be annexed. She said, according to the terms of the ILA as it is presently written "Basically, the minute we sign the ILA then the development agreement goes away and Kyle can write whatever it wants. So we want some language that says they are going to adhere to these rules when they write their development agreement. We would like to see a draft of that."

Here’s my problem with all that. No city should be allowed to dictate to another city how it should construct homes or the contents of any development districts or anything else about the way that city operates. You can dictate the rules for your own municipality but I have grave concerns when one municipality thinks it

has the right to dictate the rules for another municipality.

She also said she wanted to see maps of where the water and wastewater lines would be located before she would agree to any ILA..

In addition, she said, she wants "clarification" on Mountain City’s ability to "tie in" to Kyle’s water lines. She said she wondered if that allowed Mountain City residents, on an individual basis, to decide whether they would prefer to pay to have access to Kyle water. "That’s pretty much not the case," she told the council and the audience. "It would be pretty much all or none. We would have a main tie-in and the city of Mountain City would be responsible for paying the City of Kyle whether it’s in-city or out-of-city rates. That’s negotiable. Their out-of-city rates are 130 percent of what they currently charge their city residents, which is high to begin with. But just for clarification, it would be one main tie in. It could be used as an alternate source or for something if we ever decided to stop providing water. That’s not at all in the plans, but the City of Kyle would have the ability if we gave them the authorization to start providing water."

Curnutt said Mountain City would have to address what she referred to as extremely expensive infrastructure improvements before it could connect to Kyle’s water supply and will probably have to make those improvements sometime in the future anyway because of aging. "Our water costs are going to go up regardless," she said. "It’s a very old system."

To help defray the costs of these improvements, Curnutt wants an agreement with Anthem that stipulates Wilson will pay Mountain City $500 for every lot sold in Anthem, which, of course, is strictly between Anthem and Mountain City. 

Mountain City, for some reason known only to it (perhaps it has to do with the possible increase in traffic on its streets), wants all entrances and exits to Anthem be located on RR 150, with another one possibly located on the northeast edge of the project, away from Mountain City, and that there be absolutely no street connection whatsoever between Anthem and Mountain City. According to current plans, there is only one way in or out of the subdivision but, from what I’m hearing, the project is big enough that state law requires at least two, because, if one was blocked for any reason, there would need to be a way for emergency vehicles to access the area. The problem is, however, the area of the project that fronts 150 is relatively small, meaning the two access points would have to be so close to each other to result in major traffic problems along that stretch of 150, particularly when you consider that stretch of highway is scheduled for major renovation, i.e. widening, as part of the area’s transportation plan.

To give you another idea, of how clueless elected officials around here are when it comes to PIDs, Mayor Curnutt said Wilson is, of course, working on a PID to present to the Kyle officials. When someone asked her what a PID was, she replied it was a "Public Infrastructure District." Yipes!

There also seems to be some disagreement about what Plum Creek plans to do with the land it owns north of Kohler’s Crossing and east of 2770, basically across the street from Mountain City. According to a Plum Creek web site, this area, known as Uptown, will eventually contain "mixed-use multifamily development, restaurants, retail and office uses, the central administration offices of the local school district, a new City of Kyle library, and urban civic space in the form of plazas and an amphitheatre." Taylor, however, swore to the audience last night Uptown is not zoned for multi-family.

That’s the highlights of the discussion on the one item that was on Mountain City’s council agenda last night. Fortunately, I got to hear it when I did because, knowing that Kyle officials don’t believe in open, transparent government as much as Mountain City seems to, I’m willing to bet all mention of Monday’s meeting from Kyle’s point of view will be discussed in executive session.

After the meeting I asked both Curnutt and Taylor whether they were confident that an ILA would ever been signed. "As long as it was agreeable to all parties concerned," Taylor said. I basically repeated my question by asking, on a scale from one to 10, how confident they were a document could be written that "was agreeable to all parties concerned." They both replied, in unison, "I don’t want to go there." That, to me, did not exude a whole lot of confidence on their part a deal would ever get done.

So there’s that.