Tenorio walkout paves way for PID approval

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many times will Kyle force a homeowner to pay for the same infrastructure?

The above video tries to explain in wildly esoteric terms exactly what it is the company calling itself HDR, Inc., does. I’m not sure that I get it, but I also must admit subjects like engineering consulting are way above my head. My Hero will get it. She’s both an engineer and a consultant. Me? Not so much.

What I do know is that a representative from HDR is scheduled to make a presentation to a Planning & Zoning Commission workshop Tuesday evening on the subject of impact fees, which are the fees Kyle imposes on new or proposed developments to pay for, in this case, the costs of providing water and wastewater service infrastructure to that development.

Behind this presentation is the desire by the City Council to have the Planning & Zoning Commission double as a Impact Fee Advisory Committee. This committee will be assigned to verify that the maximum possible fee has been properly determined and to recommend to the council the actual impact fee to be levied against the developer. At least, that’s what I’m reading into this presentation.

It’s worth it to examine the actual impact of impact fees. The most important thing to note about these fees is that they are not paid by the developer of a new subdivision or even the individual homebuilders creating product within a subdivision. This from a National Association of Home Builders’ Handbook on Impact Fees: "Similar to any tax or other costs imposed on businesses, the ultimate burden of payment will, to varying degrees, be passed to new home buyers in the form of higher house prices (or, equivalently, smaller houses with fewer amenities), or come from suppliers of products and services utilized to build and deliver the home in the form of lower prices paid for those products and services."

Not only that, the Handbook goes on to say "NAHB research shows that, on average, regulations imposed by government at all levels account for 25 percent of the final price of a new single family home built for sale. Every time a local or regional government raises construction costs by, for example, increasing the price of construction permits or impact fees, the cost of building a house rises. In fact, the final price of the home to the buyers will usually go up by more than the increase in the government fee. This is because each time construction costs increase other costs such as commissions and financing charges automatically rise as well. As a result, most cost increases are passed on to the buyers with additional charges. … The bottom line is that a $1,000 impact fee imposed at the time of development approval will typically increase the costs to builders and developers to at least $1,390." According to this presentation, Kyle is looking at a maximum fee of $6,391 which, according to this formula would add, on the average, $8,883.49, to the purchase price of a new home in Kyle. According to a study conducted two years, a $1,000 impact fee that increased the price of a home $1,390 priced 282,588 potential households out of the market nationwide. That same study, found in Exhibit A of the NAHB Handbook, showed a $1,000 increase priced out 1,285 potential households in the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos market. Imagine how many potential home buyers in Kyle would be adversely effected by an $8,800 hike!

"To the extent that impact fees raise the price of all homes in a given community, the affordability of housing in that area is reduced," the NAHB Handbook states. "A reduction in housing affordability will have a negative effect on attracting and retaining workers and will have a direct impact on local governments as police officers, firefighters, teachers, and other public sector workers are heavily impacted when home prices rise. In addition, the shortage of affordable housing will make it difficult for the community to retain its own sons and daughters as they leave their parents' homes and look for affordable first homes of their own."

It appears from this presentation, Kyle is raising its maximum allowable impact fees a whopping 47.56 percent to $6,391, as compared to Buda's, our neighbors to the north, of $4,718, and San Marcos's, our neighbors to the south, of $5,791. Of course, there could be another motive at work here. Kyle has earned the reputation as the affordable home market for those priced out of living in Austin. Maybe the city is deliberately trying to rid itself of this reputation.

There’s something else to consider here. What if the council has approved one of its nefarious PIDs for the developer that’s also being charged impact fees? These PIDs allow developers to sell interest bearing ponds, the proceeds of which are also supposed to pay for required infrastructure improvements. The developers then charge homeowners monthly PID fees to recoup these costs. So now it appears homeowners are being stuck paying for these infrastructure improvements both through the increased costs they impose on the price of their home as well as via the monthly PID fees. I hope I’m wrong about this and I hope to learn whether this form of double payment is possible during Tuesday’s workshop. In fact, I’m hoping one of the commissioners raise the question, but I don’t hold out much hope for that.

Now consider this as well: All those priced out of the Kyle homeowners market obviously aren’t going to be around here to spend money in local stores, which results in a depression of sales tax receipts. What is the city going to be forced to do to compensate for that? Raise property taxes? The new home buyers in Kyle are now paying for the cost of their infrastructure through higher home prices, PID assessments and increased property taxes.

Other items the Planning & Zoning Commission are expected to hash out during its workshop, scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m., are design and construction standards for single family homes and how the city should regulate food trucks. You can find the complete agenda here.

Council to consider proposed Pecan Woods Development Agreement, PID

After months of what I’ve heard were intense negotiations, the City is scheduled to vote Wednesday on whether to approve a development agreement with the Walton Group, a multinational privately owned real estate investment and development group, on the development of 763 acres known as Pecan Woods, most of it southeast of the city limits along Ranch Road 150, and to create a $60 million PID for the project.

The boundaries of the proposed development are approximately Heidenreich Road, Ranch Road 150, Grist Mill Road and an imaginary line extending from Simon Middle School on RR 150 over to Grist Mill Road.

The PID bonds, which will have a 20-year shelf life, will be repaid by levies assessed against property owners within Pecan Woods. The money collected from the sale of the bonds will be used for streets and sidewalks; water and wastewater facilities; drainage facilities; landscaping and other aesthetics; and park, recreation and cultural facilities.

The bonds are scheduled to be issued in three phrases. This is important because there is one section of the proposed development, at the corner of Heidenreich and 150, that is designated for commercial development. That section will be annexed into the city but the rest of the development — the residential areas — will not only remain in Kyle’s ETJ, but cannot be considered for annexation until 20 years after the issuance of the bonds used to finance them. The first bonds are scheduled for the end of 2020, which means the city could not consider annexing Phase 1 until the end of 2040 at the earliest, at which time, I presume, a city council in place then could evaluate whether the condition of the development’s infrastructure made it an area worth annexing.

What follows are items I selected from the proposed development agreement that I found interesting:

• The owner of the property agrees to dedicate to the city (at no cost to the city) a one acre site within the project that may be used at the discretion of the city for the construction of a police station. The location of the police site shall be determined by the owner, but will be located off of Heidenreich Lane or Grist Mill Road in a location that would allow the police station to provide its intended services. If construction of the police station is not completed within eight years, instead of being used for police services, the site may be developed consistent with surrounding use.
• A minimum of 175 acres (approximately 23 percent of the entire project) of parks and open space will be dedicated to the city within Pecan Woods.
• The owner will pay the city $2 million toward expansion of the wastewater treatment plant within 30 days of: (1) the city approves construction plans associated with the final plat for the Phase One of the project, or (2i) approves a Service and Assessment Plan for the PID bonds, whichever comes last.
• "The failure or refusal of the city council or any board or commission of city to approve a proposed development permit, utility service extension, or other development approval with respect to Pecan Woods that complies with the terms of this agreement and the city code within a reasonable time after submission of a complete application shall constitute a default." The reason I highlighted this section is because, in the back of my mind, I thought it was illegal for a city council to agree to anything that could bind future city councils. So I asked the attorney general’s office about this and was told AG issued an opinion that distinguished between those actions that are legislative in nature and those that are administrative or propriety. In that opinion, the AG stated: "The hallmark of the first category is the authority of a legislative body to exercise continuing discretion in the setting of legal standards to govern behavior within the jurisdiction. If a contract impairs this "core" legislative discretion, eliminating or substantially reducing the discretion future bodies might exercise, the courts are likely to find that the contract has improperly impaired the legislative authority of future commissioners. By contrast, counties have, and greatly need, authority to enter into contracts and make administrative decisions concerning the management of public property and the day-to-day conduct of government business. A contract that facilitates public administration, and which places no significant constraint on future policy-making is likely to be upheld."
• Sets aside a minimum 10-acre area at the far southeastern corner of the project adjacent to the flood plain for a community garden. According to the terms of the Development Agreement, "The garden will be dedicated to the City of Kyle Parks Department, but will be the responsibility of the Home Owners Association (HOA) to maintain the facility. On-site parking may be provided, as well as parking on adjacent streets. Facilities may include shade structures, restrooms and picnic tables. It will offer a vibrant and open space for volunteers, students and residents to come together to plant seeds, harvest fruits, vegetables and give the residents of Pecan Woods and surrounding development the opportunity to be happy and healthy without going to the local grocery/convenience store."

Mayor seeks joint meeting to complete Comp Plan mid-term update

In a meeting during which City Engineer Leon Barba presented another update on the road bond projects and which featured a moving Memorial Day resolution and a equally stirring recognition of life saving acts performed by members of the Kyle Police Department, Mayor Todd Webster announced this evening he will seek to hold a one-day City Council-Planning & Zoning Commission joint meeting to complete the mid-term update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

Perhaps the most noteworthy thing to report about tonight’s Council session was its relative brevity, clocking in at just under two hours — and that included an Executive Session (which mercifully lasted only 21 minutes).

The City decided at the beginning of the mid-term Comp Plan update process it didn’t want to spend the money on consultants to make changes in the Plan the City felt could be made by self-professed planning experts. However, when the assignment came to the Planning & Zoning Commission, it decided right away consultants were required, whether or not the City want to bear the costs for those consultants, and instead of performing the update the Council requested, it drafted a letter to the Council recommending what actions the commissioners felt the consultants should take.

That letter became part of the City Manager’s Report on tonight’s agenda.

"The (P&Z) Commission ultimately determined that certain updates were needed, primarily to the maps section," City Manager Scott Sellers told the Council. "And the letter sent to Council addresses those individual revisions.

"The letter recommended we look at an outside consultant to do the work." Sellers continued. "We may be able to do most of that work in-house, maybe with a little bit of facilitation from outside sources."

Sellers said the letter referenced other plans being worked on, such as the wastewater plan, the Parks Master Plan, etc., and said those plans, when finished, would ultimately be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and the maps would be adjusted accordingly. He also said "There are some zoning issues we’ll need to look at with a growing city, especially in light of the recent annexations." He then asked for further direction from the council.

That’s when Mayor Webster announced his joint workshop plan "not just to go over the letter but also to be prepared to tackle some of the issues." He did not propose a date for the meeting but said he would set one with Sellers at a time when P&Z members would be available.

"My only issue with consultants is just cost," Webster said.

Mayor Pro Tem David Wilson endorsed Webster’s proposal, saying the ideas contained in the Comprehensive Plan all came from Kyle citizens and all the consultants did was format them. He suggested inexpensive computer software is available today that would allow the City to even handle that formatting internally.

"I would feel comfortable doing it that way and not spending hundreds of thousands on consultants again," Wilson said.

Sellers reminded the Council that this all revolved around a mid-term update, not the mandatory 10-year reformation of the Comprehensive Plan. "The five year update is more basic (than the 10-year review), updating the zoning, updating the maps" Sellers said. "This format (the proposed joint meeting), I think, is appropriate."

Council member Diane Hervol wanted to know about the extent of community involvement in the proposed workshop, which she could be forgiven for asking about because she did not attend the numerous Planning & Zoning Commission workshops on this subject that solicited and included input from Kyle residents. Sellers added additional citizen input could be superfluous because a lot of the items to be discussed during the update "are a little more technical in nature rather than long-term planning in nature."

Barba began his presentation talking about yesterday’s opening of Marketplace Extension, from City Lights to Burleson Road. Barba said there’s still work to be done on the project including "street lights we need to get working," which I was awfully glad to hear because I drove the new road on my way home from this evening’s meeting and it’s dark on that boulevard at night. Real, real dark. It also appeared to me that at the point where the extension merges into the original road, the road striping offers an optical illusion that gave me the impression the road was about to curve to the left when, in fact, it wasn’t.

He also said "improvements" were planned at the roundabout where the extension meets Burleson. He wasn’t specific about what those improvements were, but later, during the public comments section, Dan Ekakiadis, who served on the Kyle City Council from 2005 to 2007, when Wilson took over that seat, complained the roundabout was not safe. He was particularly critical about its height.

Barba said the 13-month construction on the Goforth Road project began March 21. He said the closure on the road will be in place "for another two weeks. The weather and the utilities have delayed us but we are trying to get out of there as fast as we can."

He listed late October as the beginning of construction on the Goforth Road extension. "We think it will take about four months to build that." He said he wants to start construction on Bunton Creek in September and the estimated start date for Burleson is November. "We expect that (Burleson) project to last 18 months," he told the Council. Barba said the estimated start on construction of Lehman is next March "and we’re hoping to try to move that up. We expect that project to last about 15 months, but it could be less than that based on our final plans" that removed the need for a bridge as part of the project.

In other action this evening:

• Library Director Paul Phelan and Lehman High School Principal Michelle Chae announced a joint all-ages Summer Reading Program that will take place from noon to 4 p.m., Wednesdays through Saturdays during June and July.
• The council passed a resolution approving the canvass of the May 7 City Council and charter referendum elections and set June 11 as the date for the Council runoff between Hervol and business owner Travis Mitchell, whose first matchup ended in a tie vote. The council amended the original ordinance for the runoff to add an extra day of early voting on Saturday, June 4, between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.
• Unanimously passed on first reading a pair of zoning requests, one which will pave the way for an inspection station to be located on Beebee Road at the far eastern edge of the city and another to allow for a "community commercial" development on the southwest corner of Porter and Cockerham streets. The unanimous votes removed the need for a second reading of the two proposed changes. Incidentally, the community commercial development is only a few blocks from the site of a proposed townhome development that raised such consternation from those living in a nearby subdivision that the Council killed it. Not a soul spoke at the public hearing attached to this plan, however.
• The Council voted 5-2 to amend the City’s "let’s screw potential homeowners" PID policy. According to Sellers, the changes to the ordinances would mean "The City Council would not be incentivizing residential development strictly through PIDs," which makes sense because PIDs are supposed to be financial mechanisms, not incentivizing tools. "A PID is for a larger commercialized development that may have a residential component but is not to be used to incentivize residential," Sellers said. "That was clear originally a year ago but through additional conversations we just needed to add that clarifying language." The second change, Sellers said, allows the City "to use up to 10 percent of any PID bond for PID related expenses that were outside the PID boundary"such as "wastewater improvements to the collection and the treatment system, water system improvements to get additional water capacity, drainage improvements, road improvements and other potential offsite PID impacts." Sellers said those amounts would be determined before the bonds are sold. Hervol and council member Daphne Tenorio voted against the amendments, not because they had anything against the amendments, per se, Tenorio told me, but because they were generally opposed to the "let’s screw potential homeowners" PID policy.

Hervol-Mitchell runoff tentatively set for June 11

If it’s necessary, the City Council Place 1 runoff election between incumbent Diane Hervol and business owner Travis Mitchell will take place Saturday, June 11. The runoff could be necessary because the first election last Saturday ended in a tie with each candidate receiving 510 votes.

I say "if it’s necessary," because I have learned a recount of the original votes cast will be conducted Monday. Although I have never personally seen a vote remain exactly the same after a recount, Hays County Elections Administrator Joyce Cowan has supposedly told others involved in the election that she has never seen a vote changed by a recount. And I am definitely going to defer to her knowledge of elections in Hays County.

So, if she’s right and the vote remains tied after Monday’s recount, the City Council has on its agenda Tuesday an item calling for a runoff election for the second Saturday in June, a date that virtually guarantees (because of vacation plans, school closings, etc.) a far smaller turnout than the paltry 6.04 percent of registered voters who bothered to take the trouble to vote in the first election.

Other than that, there’s nothing much on the council’s agenda, which you can read for yourself by clicking here, to get all in a huff about or even half in a huff about, although it will be interesting to get the latest update from City Engineer Leon Barba on the five road bond projects. I’m expecting him to announce the imminent opening of the Marketplace extension between City Lights and Burleson Road, but the supplementary materials made available to the public prior to the meeting offer no hint as to what Barba will say.

There’s also a resolution to amend the City’s PID policy I’m still trying to wrap my head around, but I think it means more weight is going to be given to providing financial incentives to commercial developments and less to residential ones, which is a good thing. But why that is wrapped around a PID policy escapes me since a PID is a financing tool, not an incentivizing one. Hopefully, we’ll get some clarification on these changes at Tuesday’s meeting.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

In other action, the council:

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

One more piece of evidence to prove the PID monsters lied

At the invitation of My Hero, I spent the weekend in Dallas casually celebrating my birthday. She lives just east of downtown Dallas and close to a green space called Griggs Park. When I lived there, we used to meet at Griggs to let our dogs play together there, but shortly before I moved the city temporarily closed the park for renovations. Those renovations are now complete enough so that the park has reopened and this weekend we once again took our dogs there for a couple of romps. During one of them, I was struck by a plaque, pictured above, that is part of the archway main entrance to the park. As you can see, this plaque says these park improvements were financed by a PID (the details of which can be found here).

Now if you have been following what history will refer to as "The Pillaging of New Kyle Homeowners," you might recall the crooks that helped shape Kyle’s PID policy say such a PID could not exist. It was impossible. Could never happen. In fact, the lying lawyer who represented the Development Planning Financial Group, the outfit that will administer collect the graft from Kyle’s PID actually stood at the podium during Kyle City Council meeting and said such a PID could not happen.

By the way, this PID illustrated above, the one Kyle leaders say can’t exist, is also administered, not by some private company composed of liars who will extort a fee from residents like we have here, but for free by a volunteer board comprised of the very citizens who petitioned for the PID.

Kyle Mayor Todd Webster has been throwing a childish hissy fit of late because he believes two members of the City Council he will not name publicly, (but I will: Diane Hervol and Daphne Tenorio), have been asking too many questions during City Council meetings. I'm thinking just the opposite. I believe more questions need to be asked. About everything. I’m wondering if council members had asked even more questions when the PID policy was being discussed whether the duplicity behind the policy might have been exposed. If someone had simply asked "Since you have blatantly lied to us about what PIDs can and cannot be used for, what else are you lying about?" Probably not. The fix was in. At least Hervol and Tenorio possessed the intelligence, the courage and the morality to vote against the Kyle PID policy which forces new homeowners to pay twice for infrastructure improvements to their neighborhoods.

But there is still a way the other five – Webster, Mayor Pro Tem David Wilson, Shane Arabie, Damon Fogley and Becky Selberra — can still redeem themselves and prove to the citizens of Kyle they are not hypocrites. They could each obtain a petition and secure the signatures of at least 50 percent of the residents in the neighborhoods where they live and form a PID so they, too, can repay the city for their infrastructure installations.

And what do you think the odds are of that ever happening?

Mayor Pro Tem David Wilson: All hat, no cattle

If you want to know the problems facing Kyle as well as why so few of the city’s residents participate in the electoral process, here it is in an allegorical nutshell. Stand around Mayor Pro Tem David Wilson for any length of time and he will regale you with how much he supports veterans. If there’s a flag ceremony, he’s going to be there front and center. If it has to do with pinning medals on servicemen, he’s going to fight his way to the front of the line. But if it comes down to significantly supporting veterans in such a way that it would put Wilson on the wrong side of the development interests that control all city functions, Wilson will immediately hoist the white flag and capitulate to the development camp. Yeah, sure, he will support veterans up to a point, but he is not willing to fight on behalf of their interests, especially if those interests are opposed by developers.

The same is true of the elderly. When the city’s PID process first reared its ugly head, Wilson said during council deliberations "I don’t want this to be an issue that people are afraid they are not going to be able to live in a community because they have a flat income stream and maybe are afraid that this is going to be added on top of them. I just want to assure people that is not the case." But when push comes to shove, Wilson is going to make sure that is exactly the case. Why? Because the development community insists on it and when the development community insists, the elderly are going to need to seek another champion.

Take last night’s City Council meeting, for example. I know she’s only been on the council for two meetings, but newcomer Daphne Tenorio is quickly developing into a leader to pay attention to and also someone willing to give former Mayor Pro Temp Diane Hervol some much needed cover. The two of them are rapidly displaying signs that they are going to be pillars supporting the interests of everyday Kyle residents against the entrenched developer establishment. Tenorio self-financed her election campaign so she is not beholden to anyone except the general population. Hervol was elected before I arrived in Kyle, but regardless, she is displaying some backbone.

Last night, as expected, the city passed its city/developer friendly, but anti-new-homeowner PID policy. However, before that happened Hervol supported Tenorio’s motions that would, on the surface lend some support to disabled veterans and those aged 65 and older, by exempting those who fall into those two categories from PID assessments.

Wilson was beside himself and the result was that he uttered a statement so completely outlandish, it rivaled Donald Trump’s diatribe against Mexican immigrants, if not in its bigotry, at least in its utter stupidity.

"Let’s say they are all disabled veterans (that move into a subdivision) they are not going to take care of the obligation that you have set up," Wilson said.

It’s hard to know where to begin with a statement like that. First of all, he proves his absolute dismissal of the best interests of disabled vets when those interests could be viewed as detrimental to the entrenched development community. Second, the notion that all the homes in an entire subdivision would be purchased by disabled vets is only slightly less probable than the notion that all the homes in an entire subdivision would be purchased by zombies. And finally Wilson is insisting these disabled vets, who have already fulfilled an obligation to their country that we should reward, fulfill a yet another, this time financial, obligation they had no part in formulating.

The guy whose company’s income depends on the city’s passage of this policy volunteered there was nothing "in the statutes" that allowed for these kinds of exemptions, but when pressed by Hervol he was forced to admit there was nothing "in the statutes" that prohibited them, either. Frank Garcia, who’s acting in the role of the city attorney, said "I have not researched whether they would be illegal (but) I don’t think there’s anything that prohibits them or permits them. But if they are allowed, it may defeat the purpose of the PID policy." Which would, of course, benefit future Kyle homeowners but force the city to provide basic city services to these homeowners, which the city is trying desperately to avoid providing strictly from taxes.

Finally Mayor Todd Webster said "Look, we have to develop a functional PID policy" although neither he nor anyone else promoting this policy has ever explained why.

Council member Damon Fogley doubled down on the insult to veterans by saying such an amendment would discriminate against veterans like him who are not disabled. But, of course, since he’s in bed with the development community as well, instead of siding with those veterans and moving they also be included in the exemption, he simply threw all veterans under the bus. It really was a shameful display.

Council member Shane Arrabie feigned cluelessness by saying such an exemption would force the exemptions to be in place "before we know who actually comes into the district." The policy, of course, would be in place, but not the individual exemptions. I going to give Arrabie the benefit of the doubt, however; I think he’s smart enough to know this, he just needed to say something in public to reassure the controlling interests he was firmly on their side.

As expected, the vote was 5-2 against Tenorio and Hervol and then 5-2 to pass the policy.

And the blind shall lead us

Many of those attending Wednesday’s informational meeting concerning PIDs were from the Bunton Creek subdivision, an area that, shall we say, has not had the best experience with a PID. They kept questioning the presenter at the meeting, a representative from a company called Development Planning Financial Group (DPFG), about the validity of PIDs. The rep kept repeating that, in general, PIDs are the greatest thing since the conception of Levittown, but that he didn’t know enough about the situation in Bunton Creek to speak knowledgeably on that particular PID.

Tuesday’s City Council agenda includes an item to make DPFG the manager and the administrator of the Bunton Creek PID. Go figure.

Additional reasons why the Kyle’s PID policy is morally and ethically corrupt

In addition to what I discussed below, there are a couple of additional things to note about Kyle’s use of PIDs.

They are discriminatory. They create two distinct and separate classes of citizens: those who have pay for basic city services through the payment of property taxes and those who pay for those exact same services through property taxes and additional assessments dumped on them on top of those taxes.

It’s an example of the city abandoning the concept of providing basic city services. It’s exactly the same thing as two newlyweds choosing to have a large family and deciding it will provide food and shelter to their first two children, but all the rest of them will have to pay extra for them.

Under this same idea, the city could decide to abolish its police force and instead turn over all criminal investigative functions to the county and hire private security guards for routine patrol functions and then charge residents an assessment to pay for the security guards. Would you stand for that? If not, then how can you accept these PIDs?

Kyle’s PID policy: legally OK but morally and ethically corrupt

I’ve mellowed over the years. I really have. When I first began covering and writing about politics and various governmental entities a little more than 50 years ago, I reacted with absolute outrage at the very hint of government corruption or unethical behavior by political figures. I was livid in the mid to late 1960s after President Lyndon Johnson, who campaigned in 1964 on the platform of "We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10,000 miles away to fight in no Asian war," began ramping up American involvement in Vietnam. I was practically apoplectic during the mid-1970s when I was part of UPI’s Watergate coverage team.

But later, when I taught college journalism courses at SMU and other universities, I was able to use Vietnam and Watergate as defining moments in political/journalistic history. The lesson Vietnam and Watergate taught us was that political leaders lie. And subsequent history has not only reinforced this fact, but also shown us they are for sale to the highest bidder and individual citizens not only don’t have a prayer of being the highest bidder, they are not even going to be allowed into the auction.

I’m not saying political leaders, whether at the national or the local level, are bad people. For the most part, I have enjoyed my interactions with politicians on a personal level, often times gaining the most enjoyment with those whose political philosophies are completely different from my own. They are, for the most part, good people. But they say and do bad things.

I’m not saying anything revelatory here. Why do all cities, including Kyle, have some form of an Ethics Commission? Because it is assumed those running the place are going to act unethically at same point. Of course, the members of these commissions are always appointed by the mayor and/or city council members which renders them pratically powerless against top leaders. Why does the legislature every session propose ethics reforms? Because it sounds good to a public that knows its leaders are corrupt. And why are these reforms never passed? I think you can figure that one out for yourself.

These days when I see morally and ethical corruption in the political arena, my reaction has become more benign than it once was. Sometimes I will react with a somewhat detached amusement, like when some senator or representative denies the overwhelming facts of climate change. They are not saying climate change doesn’t exist because they have scientific proof supporting their argument. They are saying it because they are being paid huge sums of money by oil companies to say that. Their speeches on climate change are written either by oil company executives or oil company lobbyists. That’s why arguing facts with these clowns is futile because facts don’t even dent the outer layers of their arguments.

Sometimes I react with sadness such as the time a couple of years ago when a Dallas city council person I not only respected, but wrote speeches for and who offered me the position of media liaison for his proposed mayoral campaign, was indicted on federal bribery charges. He was not railroaded. He did a bad thing — several bad things, in fact — and is now doing time in a federal correctional facility because of it.

Sometimes I react with plain old disgust, like I did when the City of Kyle came up with its PID policy. Part of it is because it reinforced my original perceptions about the city which I formed right after I moved here eight months ago — the city is controlled by developers and individual homeowners and neighborhoods don’t have a voice. In this auction for control of the city, the developers were the highest bidders.

I lived and worked in Dallas for 40 years before I moved here and when I first moved to Dallas the developers were in control there as well. But the city underwent a radical change and now homeowners and neighborhood groups battle with the city’s entrenched and powerful business interests for control. The business community usually wins when it comes to environmental issues, but don’t mess with homeowners when it comes to issues involving their homes or their neighborhoods. But, in an interestint development, the average citizen may be winning a bitter fight against the entrenched business community and stopping the construction of a toll road through a magnificent park along the Trinity River.

At the same time, city government in Dallas, unlike Kyle, realizes and owns up to its responsibility of providing basic services to its residents. Not only that, the city has adopted a completely transparent method of adopting its annual budget — using a method called "Budgeting for Outcomes"— which acts a scorecard for how well the city is providing those services. Dallas city government embraces the notion that the money its citizens pay in taxes should be used to provide such basic services as public safety and basic infrastructure.

Kyle, on the other hand, has abandoned all notions of that same kind of responsibility. You want water lines to and from your home, the city government tells new residents, you gotta pay extra for it in addition to paying the same taxes as everyone else.

The way new residents have to pay extra for these basic services they should receive simply by paying property and sales taxes is through something called a PID. PID stands for Public Improvement District. However, as defined by the city of Kyle it is neither public, an improvement or a district.

I must admit this about the folks running this city. They don’t hide their unethical behavior. They highlight it in neon and then sew it on their chest like it was some sort of perverted merit badge. Let me give you an example. On Wednesday evening the city "hosted" an open house which, according to the city’s web site, was intended "to provide information regarding how Public Improvement Districts (PIDs) work." But who did the city use to provide this information? An outfit called Development Planning Financial Group (DPFG) whose income derives solely from the creation of PIDs and which stands to make a boatload of dough once the city implements its PID policy. That’s like someone hosting a seminar on "The Current Political Situation in Kyle" and it turns out to be a fund-raiser and a campaign appearance by one particular city council candidate. Not in the least illegal, but highly immoral and unethical behavior.

How unethical and corrupt was this "informational" meeting? At one point, the DPFG representative (whose name I failed to capture) presenting this highly biased information said "If you walk away from here tonight with only one slide that you remember, this is the one I want you to focus on. How will a PID – a new PID proposed for a new development – affect the existing residents and existing neighborhoods? The answer is there is no impact whatsoever. No negative impact. No positive impact. Anyone who lives within the city of Kyle who does not live within the PID will have ... no impact whatsoever."

That is a lie. And that’s what makes the city’s PID policy morally and ethically corrupt. Its foundation is a lie. Those who live outside the PID will enjoy a positive impact, a likely increase in city services unfairly and unwittingly subsidized by those living inside the PID. Here’s how. As these PID communities proliferate and grow the property values within them will increase. That means those living within the PIDs pay increasingly more in property taxes. Now do you think for one minute the city will act ethically and morally and restrict the use of that increased income on services for people living within the PID?. Of course not. (Although in cities that do act ethically and morally, it’s this increase in the amount of property taxes incurred by those living in the new subdivisions that used to pay for their infrastructure needs, not a PID.) That money will be used to provide additional services to the city as a whole. Those living outside the PID get the benefits from those inside who have to pay twice for the same services.

What was interesting about this presentation was not so much the untruths spoken by the DPFG representatives, but by the fact he withheld a lot of information to keep from presenting the whole truth. For example, at one point he said a PID "is a way to keep the existing residents having to pay for the things that are not a direct benefit to them." That’s true, but what he failed to say was that city’s already had tools at their disposal to do exactly the same thing. They are called Impact Fees, defined as "a fee that is imposed by a local government within the United States on a new or proposed development project to pay for all or a portion of the costs of providing public services to the new development." These fees were developed to help cities, like Kyle, dealing with unbridled growth to help manage that growth. Sometimes, they worked too well. They stopped growth completely and that’s why cities that are not morally and ethically corrupt developed better ways to manage growth. Kyle has impact fees, but impact fees are paid by the developers up front, who then add them on to the cost of the new homes they develop. But what if there as a way that neither the city nor the developer had to pay what they rightfully should? Because, like I said earlier, government is for sale to the highest bidder, developers pushed through legislation allowing for these PIDs. (To remind you once again how proudly Kyle leaders publicly display their ethically corrupt merit pages, recall that one developer, during the first public city council meeting on the city’s proposed policy, thanked the city for allowing him and other developers to prepare that policy.)

But there’s more. The money homeowners have to pay in addition to their property taxes doesn’t just go to pay for the infrastructure they received. In this municipal version of the old shell game, the unsuspecting homeowner also has to pay an ongoing fee to DPFG or whichever company the city uses to "administer" the PID, which is nothing more than a concept to begin with. Or as the DPFG representative put it "Another thing to remember is that all the administrative requirements of the PID can and should be outsourced to professional management firms. And that is a requirement under the proposed policy – the daily activities of all PIDs in the city of Kyle will be managed by outside professionals. The PID will pay for that." In other words, he is saying, these homeowners will be paying my salary. Starting to get the picture of how unsavory this whole business is?

Later he said "The city is not at risk. The city has no legal or moral obligation to pay any of the debt involved in these bonds. Our firm has been involved in these types of financing for over 20 years and we have never seen a city have to write a check." Translated to non-bureaucratic, regular human being language this means the developer is protected, the city is protected, the PID administrators are protected. The only one not protected — the person being hung out to dry here — is the homeowner who can have his house foreclosed upon. And that homeowner is the only one of this unholy quartet that had absolutely no voice, none whatsoever, in the formation of the PID. The only voices heard in the original proposition were the terrible threesome of developer, city, and the PID administrators.

"When the (PID) bonds are sold the money is placed in trust with a trustee," the rep said. "When the developer incurs an expense, they submit a draw to the city. The city reviews those expenses to make sure they are qualified (i.e., the developer has, for instance, successfully hidden the cost of his PID petition within the water line expenses) and the city approves the payment of those expenses out of the trustee account." But then he added "The developer can’t just say ‘give me my money’. It doesn’t work that way."

Wrong. As he himself just admitted in the words that opened the previous paragraph that’s exactly the way it works. I’m going to put at zero the over/under on how many times the city will reject a developer’s request for PID money.

I also got a silent laugh out of the fact that when asked how many other states used PIDs to finance new subdivisions, he named seven — Arizona, Nevada, California, North Carolina, New Mexico, Utah, and South Carolina (California, however, did away with PIDs several years ago) — which means, of course, that 43 states don’t think they are a good idea. Of course, he’s not going to say that.

When asked a similar question, what other cities around this area, use PIDs, he named Lago Vista, Leander and Manor. What do all those cities have in common with Kyle? They are smaller communties in the shadow of a fast growing metropolitan area and desperately want to cash in on that growth at the lowest possible cost, especially if the only person at a financial risk is the person who doesn’t live there yet.. They want rooftops. That’s all. "If we build it, they will come." And the unethical part of all this is they don’t care if these new residents have a decent quality of life once they are living in these cities because, they figure, once they buy the house, they are residential prisoners of the city.

Not only that, the city forced the prisoners to pay for the construction of the prison.

That damn $1,000-a-month-assessment scenario

I’ve been spending the last hour or so trying to get to sleep. You see I have to drive to Austin early in the morning to spend the day with my granddaughter. Not that I don’t want to drive to Austin early in the morning to spend the day with my granddaughter. Truth be told, I’m really looking forward to doing just that. I just wish I could get to sleep so I’ll have a more alert day with my granddaughter.

What’s keeping me awake is visions of a lawyer. Not any lawyer, mind you, but that scoundrel Steven C. Metcalfe and specifically these words he spoke before the Kyle City Council last night:

"Once a homeowner has bought his house and that homestead is in place, the assessment is set. It never changes. If it’s $1,000 per month, it’s going to be $1,000 a month going forward."

Let that sink in and roll around your cranium a little bit. Then consider this: Suppose some homeowner-gouging developer comes in wishing to plunk a 200-home subdivision somewhere in Kyle and gets a Kyle-type PID for the subdivision. And let’s say its one of those Metcalfe-type $1,000-a-month-assessment boondoggles. Figure it up, 200 homes, $1,000 a month, over the 30-year-life of the PID.

That’s $72 million into the pockets of the developer. That’s right $72 million, minus the interest on the bonds. There is no one on this climate-changing planet that can tell me that’s a fair deal. It’s not. Certainly, it’s a lucrative deal for the developer, but fair it isn’t. No way. No how.

For the sake of the argument, let’s just say it’s half that. It’s still a $36 million windfall for the developer. You really think he’s going to put in $36 million worth of additional "improvements" into this subdivision? Give me a break.

Just something to keep me awake at night.

One depressing city council meeting

It’s really saddening to see just how shamelessly the Kyle City Council acted and reacted tonight when it came to discussing its proposed policy on Public Improvement Districts in the city. I don’t know which is the more depressing thought – that our council is nothing more than pawns to be moved around a chess board at the whim of developers or that they just sat there and allowed an attorney to lie to their faces without a single person on that council challenging his blatant falsehoods.

Here’s the bottom line: Following a public comment session in which the only persons who spoke in favor of the city’s proposed PID policy were a pair of developers and a bond attorney, all of whom stand to make a lot of money off this policy at the expense of Kyle homeowners, the council approved the policy 6-1 (Mayor Pro Tem Diane Hervol cast the one sane vote).

Now, to be fair, I can see the council’s point of view here. They’re up on that dias thinking "Why should I care about those homeowners? They never come to any of our council meetings and object to how we’re sticking it to them. They don’t even take the time to vote. These poor sheep need people like us to tell them how fortunate they are to fall victim to robber barons. In fact, they’re lucky to have us. Without us they’d be wasting their money on frivolities, like their children’s education, family vacations and the like."

But it gets worse. It was revealed during the course of the public comments that the city enlisted these fat-cat money-gouging developers to help draft the propose policy. That’s like asking a pedophile to help write your child protection ordinances. The fix was in from the get-go.

I got the business cards from the three individuals who spoke in favor of the policy just to prove I’m not making any of this up. The three were Adam Moore, planning and development manager for Walton Development and Management; Tony Spano, project manager for Plum Creek Development Partners, Ltd. (who spilled the beans about being one of the developers who helped draft the proposal); and Steven C. Metcalfe, an attorney (and possibly a partner) with Metcalfe Wolff Stuart & Williams, LLP, who proved once again that there is truth in the adage: "How do you know when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving."

This man had the unmitigated gall to stand before the council and say "Let me point out something related to an earlier statement that PIDs made more sense to fund improvements in an existing neighborhood. Well, I tell ya, practically that doesn’t make sense because I don’t know of one that’s ever been done that way ... technically, it’s not even possible." Hate to tell you, Metcalfe, but not only are they done that way, not only is it possible, as anyone can see from reading this presentation to the Dallas City Council, that’s the ONLY way PIDs are allowed in the City of Dallas. And to stand there and tell the council otherwise is unpardonable. But, then, I guess you have to expect that from someone who is going to rake in some pretty nice billable hours as well as hefty commissions from gouging Kyle homeowners.

But this is the same guy who told the council: "Once a homeowner has bought his house and that homestead is in place, the assessment is set. It never changes. If it’s $1,000 per month, it’s going to be $1,000 a month going forward."

$1,000 a month??? What planet did this guy drop in from? That’s possibly a sum greater than the actual monthly mortgage payment for most Kyle homeowners. And he just throws that sum out there like "Why, every homeowner should just be tickled pink to buy a home in a subdivision where he or she has to pay an extra $1,000 a month for something they probably didn’t want and have no intention of ever using."

But I’m not sure the council members were even listening at that point. It’s obvious they have been purchased by and must react to the demands of the development community. Those are the folks with the money and we all know that money, not principles, is what drives politics these days.

I also learned why the new proposed ordinances governing boards, commissions and committees require committee members to be registered voters, but do not have that requirement for members of boards and commissions. I first posed the question to Mayor Todd Webster who just decided the best way to handle the inquiry was to ignore it. Not a good response for a mayor. So I asked the city attorney, thinking he might have actually drafted the ordinance. Foolish me. So then I asked City Manager Scott Sellers and it turns out the reason is there are certain individuals who are currently serving as members of city boards and commissions who are not registered voters and the city didn’t want to throw them off those boards/commissions by requiring them to do their civic duty. So there’s that.

City’s flawed proposed PID policy desperately needs additional safeguards for homeowners

The Kyle City Council is preparing to discuss a hand-over-the-keys-to-the-treasury-to-developers-and-screw-the-homeowners PID policy. You can check it out for yourselves. Go to Page 147 of Tuesday’s city council agenda and read it for yourself.

Now perhaps council members will try to say my description of this policy is incorrect. And I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps I am wrong. But I’m going to place the burden of proof on them to show me I’m wrong. There are a couple of very easy steps the council can take to show me the error of my ways.

First and foremost, postpone the discussion of this policy until such time as the two newly elected council members, Damon Fogley and Daphne Tenorio, assume their respective positions. Right now the council consists of two lame duck members whom voters can’t hold responsible for their actions. That is not transparent government. In fact, is undemocratic. Citizens must retain the right to hold those they elect responsible for actions those elected officials take that affect them, especially affect them monetarily. So just put off discussing this until the new members are seated.

Second the PID policy must include language similar, if not identical, to this:

"The City of Kyle will allow the use of Public Improvement Districts for single-family districts (defined as areas with a minimum of 30 percent of land area dedicated to detached single-family housing) in established areas (defined as at least 80 percent of all single-family lots being developed) for the purpose of funding screening wall improvements, park improvements and maintenance, landscaping, other public improvement and additional security if less than 50 percent of the total PID budget. The PID Policy will NOT support the creation of PID Districts in undeveloped subdivisions."

If council members are indeed interested in protecting the rights of homeowners, they should have no qualms about inserting the above language into its PID policy. If they refuse, you know the council is siding with developers at the expense of homeowners. What the council intends to do is not to grant PIDs to neighborhoods, as it should, but to developers who will use the money as they see fit and than assess the homeowners who purchase individual parcels of land within the PID after the fact. That, dear friends, is a textbook example of taxation without representation and rumor has it revolutions have erupted over such tyrannical actions.

PID stands for "Public Improvement District." It’s a mechanism used to improve an area, not to develop it. The city can use much fairer methods, such as tax increment financing, for development purposes.

The third item under the General category in Kyle’s proposed policy says: "PID petition signatures should reflect that a reasonable attempt was made to obtain the full support of the PID by the majority of the property owners located within the proposed PID."

That’s simply not strong enough. If you are going to force the property owners of a neighborhood to pay an assessment to finance improvements to their neighborhood, you need the buy-in of more than "a reasonable attempt" at securing majority approval. If the council really wants to protect property owners it will substitute that third item with this language:

"In new or renewing Single-Family PIDs, the City will require that Owners representing at least 66.7 percent of the value and 66.7 percent of all record Owners or 66.7 percent of land area support the creation of a new PID.

"In new and renewing commercial or mixed use district PIDs, the City will require that Owners representing at least 60 percent of the value and 60 percent of all record Owners or 60 percent of land area support the creation of a new or renewing PID."

Under the section labeled "Financing Criteria," the following language should be inserted:

"PID assessments will be based on a set rate based on total property value. The maximum PID assessment in Kyle shall be $0.15 per $100 valuation."

"Administrative expenses in these districts shall not exceed 10 percent of the total budget in any year."

Under the section labeled "Project Criteria," the following language should be inserted:

"A PID application for creating or renewing a PID shall include a section that clearly identifies the benefit of the PID to the affected property owners and to the city as a whole and also evidence of insurance."

"Any management firm for a PID shall be required to submit quarterly reports of all activities and expenditures; an annual independent audit of all PID expenditures; and shall hold an annual meeting open to all property owners and held in a public meeting space with written notice to all property owners in the PID at least two weeks prior to this meeting to provide an opportunity for property owner questions, comments and input to be considered during the PID Budget and Service Plan approval process."

With these safeguards in place, property owners will be protected and PIDs can be used as they were intended.

And if these "clarifications" are included in Kyle’s PID policy I will issue a formal apology to council members for calling them evil devils beholden only to developers at the expense of property owners.