In a goofy discussion and vote, city council places contradictory parking restrictions on Cromwell Drive

This blog had been retired for two almost two years, but because of my involvement in the Black Lives Matter movement, I revived it when pressure began mounting in earnest to replace the racist mascot at Hays High School. So I figured, if I was going to do it for that, I might as well take a look at what’s transpiring with our city government since that is what inspired the creation of this journal back in the fall of 2014. As a result, I watched my first city council meeting in more than two years last night and I felt a sense of relief in seeing it’s just as goofy as it was when I stopped paying attention back in 2018.

The real goofiness took place during a discussion about parking on Cromwell Drive by city council members who appear to have never spent any time on Cromwell Drive. Then additional goofiness was added by the city engineer who apparently knew even less about Cromwell than the council members.

So in short, here’s the result of the action the council took last night: On Cromwell, between Sampson and the unfortunate cul-de-sac, parking will only be allowed on the west side of the street. On Cromwell, between Sampson and Dorman, parking will be completely prohibited. On Cromwell, between Dorman and Kohlers Crossing, parking will only be allowed on the east side of the street. That’s three different parking restrictions on a road that’s just one mile in length — a road that will soon be, if it isn’t already, the most densely populated road in the city.

Parking restricted to the west, fire hydant side on the south end of Cromwell

Now it didn’t start out this badly. As mayor pro tem Rick Koch originally proposed the one-side-of-the-street-only parking ordinance, it would have limited the north-end parking to the west side only, just as it is on the south end of the street. But then came a discussion about fire hydrants and what side of the street they were on, which was my first clue that none of the council members — not a single one of them — had any familiarity with Cromwell Drive. For some reason, the council thought, parking should be only be allowed on the side opposite the hydrants. And, in theory, that’s all well and good. But if these people knew anything about Cromwell, they would know that not only is parking restricted to the side of the street containing the hydrants on the south end of the street, but that motorists consistently park their cars on that side of the street closer to the hydrants that is permitted by law, but are never ticketed for it. So why all the sudden concern about hydrants now?

At another point in this goofy discussion, council member Michael Tobias wondered if pedestrian walkways could be inserted to aid pedestrians in getting from the place where they must park their car to the place where they live. Seemed like a reasonable request.

Except.

“I’m not a great fan of mid-block pedestrian crossings,” said City Engineer Leon Barba, “but they exist. I’ve seen them throughout other cities.”

Other cities? OTHER CITIES??? How about seeing them not only right here in Kyle but right there on freaking Cromwell Drive? There are two — count ‘em, two! — mid-block pedestrian crossings on Cromwell between Sampson and Dorman. But no one on the council was informed enough about what they were voting about to contradict Barba. Yes, dear readers, things haven’t changed at all at City Hall.

Of course, these rwo mid-block pedestrian crossings are completely useless. Instead of serving what pedestrian crossings are supposed to accomplish — protecting pedestrians — they actually only paint a large target on pedestrians for the sake of oncoming motorists. But that’s another issue.

One of the two "non-existent" mid-block pedestrian crossings on Cromwell Drive 

Anyway, the ordinance passed unanimously on first reading and it was decided that there would be no need for a second reading so, yes, the city of Kyle now has three separate, distinct and different parking restrictions on one, one-mile-long road. That’s what I love about this body — consistency has never been a concern. I guess I could understand the lack of consistency in regulations around a city of 50,000 persons, but on one, one-mile road? C’mon.

But, like I said earlier, I find this somewhat comforting, It’s good to know that this government body hasn’t changed during my two-year sabbatical. They still adhere to the same premise: “If the choice is between the simple and the complicated/confusing, let’s always go with the latter.”

I, on the other hand, have changed. Two years ago, these types of actions by the city council made me fear for the future of the city I chose to call home for the remainder of my life. I actually lost a lot of sleep worrying about what these people were promulgating. That was damaging my health and that’s the reason I put The Kyle Report in hibernation.

Now, I just sit back and laugh. Because, when you think about, it really is funny.

As a postscript to all of this, I do want to go on record as saying I don’t believe the council deliberately intends to enact confusing, contradictory ordinances. That’s simply the result of something far more troubling. As I mentioned earlier in this article, the real problem is that members of the city council as well as the relevant city staff simply don’t take the time — they don’t make the effort — to study and become as informed as they should be about all the items on the council's agendas. I’m willing to bet not one member of the Kyle City Council took the time — made the effort — to make the short, one-mile drive, along the entire length of Cromwell Drive between the time they first saw this proposed ordinance on the agenda and the time they voted on it. If just one of them — just one of the seven — had mentioned the fact that parking was already restricted to the west, fire-hydrant side of Cromwell on the southern end of the street and then they voted to approve restricting parking on the other side of the street at the northern end, this vote might have still seemed strange and confusing but not completely without thought or reasoning. But not one of them did and the only explanation for that is simply they just weren’t well informed enough about what they were voting on.

Additional thoughts on Tuesday’s City Council meeting

1. Daphne done did good

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Now for the great news:

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

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

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

Parking could be limited in Plum Creek by Father’s Day

Last night the City Council passed on first reading two ordinances to prohibit parking on one side of the street in two different areas of Plum Creek. The first was on the north side of Wetzel between FM 150 and Mather and the second was on the residential side of the 1700 through 1900 blocks of Kirby and the 5100 and 5200 blocks of Hellman. Although the ordinances passed unanimously, council member Damon Fogley missed last night’s meeting, so the proposals will have to return for a second and final reading at the council’s next meeting in three weeks time, June 5.

So the obvious question is when will this new parking prohibition go into effect? Public Works Director Harper Wilder answered that question today.

"Whenever it is finalized by council, my Street Division Manager Scott Egbert will order the necessary signage," Wilder said. "Upon ordering, typically it takes up to a week to get the signs in. Once we receive the signs here at Public Works, we tend to put them up within a day or so."

So, according to my calculations, that puts the effective date right around Father’s Day.

Proposed parking ordinance actually does contain goofy panhandling provision

Two days ago, when I first wrote about the proposed parking ordinance the City Council is scheduled to consider at its Tuesday evening meeting, I said this revised edition replaced the anti-panhandling plank in the original with one that put it in its proper context. Upon further review, upon additional study, this decision is being reversed. There’s no question that this proposal, which is identified on the council’s agenda as one designed "to prescribe the lawful time, manner and place for parking, stopping and/or standing of automobiles and trailers upon both public rights of way and private property" does much more than that. It does try to sneak in an anti-panhandling provision in there and it also contains an entire section on the use of wireless hand-held communication devices that could be completely nullified by action in the upcoming special session of the Texas Legislature.

First things first, however. That panhandling prohibition. Don’t get me wrong. I whole-heartedly support a ban on panhandlers. They can be a nuisance at best, dangerous and life-threatening at worse. I must also admit, however, in my almost three years as a Kyle resident, I have not once been troubled by a panhandler. In any case, if the city seeks such a ban, it should be in a completely different ordinance than one that regulates "parking, stopping and/or standing of automobiles" if, as it is in this case, the guilty party is going to be the panhandler, not the motorist.

But there it is in all its glory. Section 47.33 (c) reads "It is unlawful for a person to loiter in medians or near corners, sidewalks, crosswalks or intersections of congested roads for the solicitation of money." As an anti-panhandling ordinance, that's as straightforward as one can be. Now, if the section said it was unlawful for a motorist to stop his or her vehicle on congested roads to provide money, food or other aide to someone loitering in medians or near corners, sidewalks, crosswalks or intersections of said roads, then it would belong in this proposed ordinance. Because then the guilty party is the operator of the motor vehicle. But in this case, if someone is cited for violating this section it is clearly going to be the panhandler which, ipso facto, makes it anti-panhandling ordinance, which simply doesn’t fit here.

However, I can assure you such legalities have never stopped our local council from passing such non-sequiturs in the past, it will not stop them from passing this one Tuesday and will do absolutely nothing to keep them from doing it again many times in the future. And one could argue that goofiness has its own sense of charm. I, for one, have that type of personality where I can wear the fact that I live in a city with goofy ordinances that make no sense as a badge of honor. Going strictly by the book all the time is boring. C’mon, no harm, no foul, as "they" say.

Speaking of goofy, I still haven’t even spotted, let alone gotten my hands on, one of those "newspapers with a reflective vest" that’s referred to in Section 47.33 (c) (2) of the proposed ordinance.

Now to that second point.

One of the cardinal sins in my profession is to make assumptions, but on the moral ledger that is the account of my life, making the assumption I’m about to make is going to rank so significantly low that the morality police will stop reviewing my misdeeds long before they get to this one.

This version of the parking ordinance, which is labeled a second reading, but is actually an entirely new version of the one bounced to the city’s legal department on first reading, contains a section that wasn’t even included in the original — a ban on the use of hand-held wireless communications devices while operating a motor vehicle or bicycle. It begins right there at Section 47-187 of the proposed ordinance.

Now as a small handful of Kyle residents are aware, the city council has already passed such an unenforceable ordinance. (I say "a small handful" and "unenforceable" because I personally witness, at the minimum, three motor vehicle operators a day talking on a wireless phone while driving in Kyle. I will admit I’ve never seen someone using one while riding a bicycle.)

Now here’s the assumption I’m leaping to here. In the vernacular that’s so popular these days in our nation’s capitol, this proposal is a "repeal and replace," not just an addition to. And my assumption is the repeal includes an unavoidable repealing of those sections of the city’s code that currently contain the ban on using hand-held devices. This, then, is the necessary replacement mechanism.

Of course, the entire effort could be rendered moot by our happy-go-lucky legislature, the members of which appear to be so ego-driven they consider themselves the only elected officials in the entire state who are competent enough to make laws. One of the measures the governor is seeking passage of during the special session, that also begins Tuesday, is one that would (1) ban texting while driving throughout Texas and (2) prohibit local municipalities from passing any regulations governing the use of such communication devices and nullify any and all local provisions that are currently on local books regulating such uses.

So there’s that.

Council to discuss already-ignored Comp Plan updates, peculiar parking program

The City Council agenda for this coming Tuesday’s 7 p.m. meeting calls for the body to hold a public hearing and vote on mid-term amendments to the city’s Comprehensive Plan, which has already been openly and defiantly ignored by the Planning & Zoning Commission, as well as the first reading of a much-needed yet peculiar parking ordinance.

In its meeting last Tuesday, the Planning Commission ignored the fact that the city’s new vision for its future lists community commercial zoning as a recommended use for a particular section of town and rejected an applicant’s plea for that particular zoning, voting instead to recommend a more restrictive zoning use for the land in question. The decision sent a clear message to developers and potential investors interested in Kyle: "Pay no attention to what’s contained in our Comprehensive Plan. It isn’t worth even considering. Here in Kyle, we make up our own rules on the fly."

Now I have always maintained a city’s Comprehensive Plan is a guide and not a rule book. But there’s something wrong when a majority of commissioners vote against a recommended zoning use for no other reason than the personal whims of that majority. That substitutes those short-sighted whims for what is stated as the long-term vision of the city as a whole.

Interestingly, the council also has that same zoning item on its agenda Tuesday. It will be interesting to see if the council follows the recommendations of the updated Comp Plan, which it will vote on as Item 18, or the recommendations of the Planning Commission, which comes up two items later.

There is much to applaud in the Comp Plan revisions under consideration, even though the Planning Commission has, by its actions earlier in the week, essentially declared those revisions worthless. Chief among them is the elimination of the so-called "Employment District" land use designation for a section of the city where absolutely no one would locate a significant center of employment, especially since it is served neither by Kyle water or wastewater infrastructure. Under the revisions, that extreme northeast area, most of which actually lies outside Kyle’s corporate limits, will bear the designation "Transitional Settlement" district, which is now being described as an area for "low-density housing … serviced by private wastewater treatment plants while still preserving its rural landscape heritage."

The other districts to receive a major overhaul include a pair of districts that formerly each bore the name New Settlement District. Under the revisions, the former New Settlement District located entirely east of I-35 will be called East Settlement Community. The proposed wording of the revised plan describes the remaining New Settlement District, which stretches across the southern border of the city, as being "as diverse as the district is expansive" and one which is "defined more by the function of the streets and neighborhoods that serve any particular block being examined and less by the multiple land forms characteristic of the region as a whole." The plan seems to recognize this area is ripe for potential development, particularly along the planned new route of RR 150 which will cut through the district: "Future development will occur along roadways best suited for access, and in the best proximity to the emerging water and wastewater infrastructure planned for in the city’s capital improvement plan."

Also worthy of note is a sentence inserted in the description for the Midtown District, which incorporates what is currently mainly a residential area north of downtown and east of I-35: "High-density residential, attached residential, and non-residential projects like employment and retail sales should be considered based on their … likelihood of compatibility of adjacent uses." Although this is entirely accurate, there will be some residents living in that district that will likely take issue with that statement, such as was the case last year when residents of the Silverado subdivision were successful in bullying the council to deny "high density, attached resident" townhouse zoning to property located within this district.

A sentence added to the description of New Town District, which includes most of the Plum Creek subdivision states "As parcels along major roadways and alongside high capacity wet utilities become available, the development density of those parcels should be established higher than other areas of the city, especially any properties in proximity to either I-35, FM 1626, or both." It also states this district includes "the proposed site for an ‘Uptown’ shopping/activity center," presumably planned for a location at or near the northeast corner of FM 1626 and Kohlers Crossing.

The revised comp plan recommends an increased number of mixed use developments for the Old Town Community which includes downtown Kyle and that area immediately east of downtown all the way to where Center Street intersects with Rebel Road. " … development should encompass a true model of multiple uses within the same structure to permit greater potential to operate in the same land area available today," according to the new wording used to describe the district. "Once a greater number and variety of service and product providers assembles in Kyle’s Old Town District, store owners should be able to solicit patronage from not only the residential immediately adjacent, but from the considerable number of residences to the north and northwest." This wording is also likely to receive some pushback from longtime residents in the area.

The revised plan also tries to further differentiate the so-called regional nodes from those nodes designed as local in nature. "Regional Nodes are scaled and designed as activity centers where users not only secure goods and services, but also congregate and remain for extended periods, unlike Local Nodes which are designed around quick turnaround convenience retail," according to wording inserted in this update.

Although this will be the first reading of the ordinance adopting the Comp Plan amendments, Tuesday’s meeting will provide the final opportunity for a public hearing on those amendments, According to a staff memo that accompanies the agenda item, "The process as spelled out by the city’s charter is a series of three public hearings: two of which have already taken place before the Planning & Zoning Commission on April 11 and April 25, 2017; the deliberation period from the second public hearing was extended to May 9, which had the added effect of postponing this third public hearing in front of the mayor and city council to May 16. This meeting will serve as the final meeting (emphasis mine) where the edits will be deliberated and adopted in front the city council."

The proposed parking ordinance, while welcomed and needed, is problematic because of its somewhat checkered history, its inclusion of an anti-panhandling section in what’s supposed to be strictly an ordinance regulating parking, its discriminatory attitude against multi-family areas of town and the typical Kyle approach of looking only at present needs without any regard to long-term vision.

The history of this ordinance includes an attempt several weeks ago to bring it before the Planning & Zoning Commission over the strenuous objections of one commissioner who maintained the commission’s consideration of a parking ordinance did not fall within the duties assigned the commission by the city charter. Then, at last Tuesday’s P&Z meeting, Planning Director Howard Koontz informed the commission it would no longer be assigned to consider the proposed parking ordinance because it fell outside its jurisdiction. That was greeted with the strenuous objections of another commissioner who argued P&Z should consider everything involving "planning" or otherwise it should be renamed "the Zoning Commission." That commissioner left unsaid whether the definition of everything involving planning included planning for such things as the proposed Hot Air Balloon Festival or exactly where that line needed to be drawn. Then, three days after Planning & Zoning was removed from any jurisdiction over the proposal, it suddenly appeared on the city council’s agenda posted Friday evening.

The anti-panhandling feature which mysteriously finds it way into what’s supposed to be a parking ordinance is contained in Section 47.37 (f) which reads: "It is unlawful for a person to loiter near corners, sidewalks, crosswalks or intersections of congested roads for the solicitation of money or the selling or promotion of goods and services." Personally, I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with parking.

The multi-family discriminations can be found in Sections 47.52 and Sections 47.53. To avoid duplication, I’ll simply mention the latter which says "It is unlawful for a person to leave, stand or park a large motor vehicle, travel trailer, personal water craft or boat, either attached or unattached to a motor vehicle on a public street in any single family residential zoning district (again, emphasis mine) in excess of 24 hours." The question is why discriminate against such streets as Cromwell Drive, which (1) extends from Kohlers Crossing past Sampson, (2) is quickly becoming "an apartment row," (3) is one of the principle entrance and exit drives for Plum Creek, and (4) should have the same restricted parking prohibitions as public streets in single-family districts? The reason is simple: The folks who craft these ordinances don’t live in apartments so they don’t care what happens on the public streets where apartments are located.

Why this is such a short-sighted ordinance is because it is a proposed parking ordinance that contains neither the phrase "parking meter" nor "parking garage." I realize neither exist within the city at present, but that’s why I say this ordinance looks only at the present and does not address the long-term.

I also question the wisdom of the wording in Section 47.27 (e) which states that for any parking violation "The registered owner and the operator of the vehicle, when not the same, are both liable to the city for the parking citation." Here’s the problem with that: How is the person issuing the parking citation going to know whether "the registered owner and the operator of the vehicle" are not the same person unless that person issuing the citation waits at the parked vehicle for its operator to return?

Section 47.30 states it’s a "level two violation," punishable by a $30 fine, to park in a no parking zone, but a "level three violation," punishable by a $50 fine, to park in a fire zone. Isn’t a fire zone, by definition, a no-parking zone?

The wording of Section 47.31 should be more inclusive, Right now it reads "When signs or markings are placed on a public street or in a public area giving notice thereof, no person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle for a period of time longer than the time indicated on the signs or markings." I think it should include additional wording so that it reads: "When signs or markings are placed on a public street or in a public area giving notice therefore, no person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle for a period of time (1) longer than the time indicated on the signs or markings or (2) during a time expressly prohibited by the signs or markings." This would then include signs limiting vehicles to parking for, say, two hours only, as well as enforcing regulations where parking is prohibited, for example, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Mondays through Fridays, except holidays and the like.

Other items on Tuesday’s agenda include:

• Two items that appear, to my eyes, identical. Both items 24 and 25 are exactly the same request (each contains the exactly same worded request letter) from James Ingalls, an engineer with Moeller and Associates of New Braunfels, requesting waivers from minimum development standards for the Windy Hill subdivision. Not that I can find a thing wrong with the request; it’s just that I can’t find any distinction between the two, except that on the agenda one bears the label "FP-16-006" and the other "FP-16-007." Hopefully, sharper eyes than mine can discern the difference.
• A request to shell out $1.4 million to Burgess & Nipple, Inc., of Austin to "provide design drawings and specifications for construction of the new (wastewater) treatment facilities and for upgrading or repurposing existing facilities." According to City Engineer Leon Barba, the design firm has already completed plans for expanding the current wastewater treatment plant. Under the terms of this proposed expenditure "B&N will submit plans for review at the 50 percent and 95 percent completion level," according to Barba. "Staff will review the plans and specifications and provide comments. When the plans are 95 percent completed, a cost estimate will be prepared and then submitted to TCEQ for review and approval. When the 100 percent of the plans and specifications are completed, B&N will begin and complete the bidding process." The $1.4 million will come from accumulated wastewater impact fee funds.
• A presentation from City Manager Scott Sellers on something called the Waterstone Development. I have absolutely no idea what this is, but presumably it’s one of those items that has been discussed in council executive sessions that, up until now, bore a colorful nomenclature like "Radiant Red" or "Passionate Purple," or even the already discussed "Just Peachy," which is scheduled to be part of this week’s executive session. The only relevant item a Google search produced was a listing for a Massachusetts-based Waterstone Retail Development that "operates as a real estate development, acquisition, and management company in the United States. The company specializes in the creation and repositioning of shopping centers. It focuses on grocery-anchored power and non-traditional specialty centers. The company develops properties under the 'build to own' model. Its activities include land acquisition, new developments, project repositioning, financing, construction, leasing, management, and portfolio acquisitions." However, this company has no recorded dealings anywhere in the state of Texas, so I doubt it has anything to do with Sellers’s planned presentation.
• Wastewater Division Manager Jason Biemer is also scheduled to make a presentation on the implementation of a computer-based monitoring system being installed at seven wastewater lift stations that Biemer says will give the city "(1) more robust detection ability of a potential failure; (2) better monitoring of pump health i.e. efficiency; (3) better preventative maintenance, predicting failures before they happen in many cases; and (4) faster response from treatment staff to potential plant upsets."
• The nomination of Plum Creek resident Amy McWhorter, who holds a master’s degree in public administration "with a concentration in land use management," to the Board of Adjustments/Sign Control Board.
• Spending $97,108.86 (and that includes a $74,501.14 buyback discount) to purchase one of these for the Stormwater Department. That 97 large represents 20 percent of the unencumbered balance in Stormwater’s approved fiscal year budget.
• Spending another $98,356, or 25 percent of what’s left of that unencumbered balance in Stormwater’s approved fiscal year budget, for two of these.

Solving the Lehman congestion problem

When I wrote about the city council’s response to a proposed ordinance amendment that would attempt to solve the problem of off-campus parking by Lehman High School students by requiring residents in the neighborhoods where the students are parking to twist and turn through and around all kinds of bureaucratic obstacles to obtain parking permits, I mentioned the solution proposed did absolutely nothing to address the root causes of the problem. According to his testimony provided at Tuesday night’s city council meeting, Police Chief Jeff Barnett said the problem was caused by students needing to quickly drive to their after-school jobs and avoiding the congestion that comes from using the school’s parking lot. And, according to council member Daphne Tenorio, the residents of the area affected by the off-campus parking, especially those in the Steeplechase subdivision, were demanding the city pay the costs of installing no-parking signs on the affected residential streets.

Think about that for a moment. The residents were demanding the city fix a problem caused by the school. These same folks that scream about the notion that the city’s property tax rate is so high come running to the city screaming for it to shell out money to fix a neighborhood problem the city is not even responsible for causing. Don’t these folks realize that only 20.6 percent of their total property tax bill goes to the city, yet 54.2 percent — more than twice as much — goes to the school district? And residents must pay that school district property tax even if they don’t have children attending Hays CISD schools? Get a grip here — the school district needs to help fix the problem.

And here’s how it can do exactly that:

As I understand it, the congestion is caused by the fact that all the students parked on the Lehman High parking lot must exit onto Lehman Road, just south of that road’s termination at Goforth, an intersection where traffic is controlled by three stop signs. The students exiting the parking lot, combined with other traffic going north on Lehman quickly form a long queue from the intersection blocking the exit from the student parking lot.

To fix that problem, the school district, or perhaps simply Lehman High School independently, needs to contract with the Kyle Police Department to hire a pair of off-duty uniformed officers to direct the traffic. One officer is stationed at the parking lot entrance to temporarily start and stop the traffic going north and south on Lehman, directing the student vehicles exiting from the parking lot, while the second is positioned at the intersection to temporarily start and stop the traffic on Goforth, negating the need for the Lehman traffic to stop at that intersection during this time and preventing the backups. I would expect the total time the officers would be required to expedite the flow of traffic would be 30 minutes each school day. ThaT should not be a high ticket item, especially for a school district that is seeking voter approval next month on a quarter of a billion dollar bond package. This arrangement, in fact, would mean a more rapid after school exit for those in the Lehman High parking lot than for those parked in the surrounding neighborhoods.

Incidentally, voters will be asked to vote on that bond package the same day the district has scheduled a parade to celebrate its 50^th anniversary. Go figure.

Two council members – Hervol, Tenorio – try in vain to keep city from raising property taxes

Here’s the scorecard: Council members Diane Hervol and Daphne Tenorio fought hard at last night’s City Council meeting to prevent a property tax increase. Mayor Todd Webster, Mayor Pro Tem David Wilson, and council members Becky Selbera, Shane Arabie and Damon Fogley fought just as hard to raise the tax rate and ultimately prevailed.

Perhaps those advocating for no rate increase can take solace in the fact that it could have been worse. The city manager’s proposed budget would have raised the tax rate from $.4870 per $100 valuation effective rate to $.6145. By the time the council completed its spending spree last night, the tax rate stood at $.5848. That means the owner of a median priced home in Kyle will see the city’s share of his property tax increase from $1,076.27 annually to $1,292.41 instead of $1,358.05.

One of the more interesting votes of the evening came when Mayor Todd Webster recommended adding four more police officers and two more police vehicles than the city manager had proposed to the budget. The vote on that idea was 6-1 with Arabie casting the one "nay" vote.

The council also wisely, I think, increased funding to the Kyle Chamber of Commerce by $32,000 but still clings to the belief that the Greater San Marcos Partnership will do the city some huge economic development favor and voted to keep funneling money to that organization. I’m apologize for not sharing their optimism on this subject. I would rather the council use that money to join with the local Chamber and others to fund its own Greater Kyle Economic Development Corporation, but then I’m a "root, root, root for the home team" kind of guy, which, perhaps, is the reason I purchased season tickets to Lehman’s and Hays’s football games. I do not know Kyle Chamber CEO Julie Snyder well, but I have been positively impressed by what I have seen from a distance of her in action. The council did, however, add $25,000 for generic "economic development."

Of course, a lot of pork barrel was added at the last minute last night including a whopping $700,000 to fund a drastically overpriced (according to city staff) one-half mile sidewalk project along Rebel Road between Center Street and Silverado Drive (courtesy of Wilson) and another council member’s contribution to a friend’s slush friend by handing over $30,000.to the library, while, at the same time, gutting programs that provide funds to such much-needed programs as Meals on Wheels and area food banks.

Only Selbera and Wilson sided with the mayor when he tried to strip away the additional protective equipment for fire fighters which had been approved at the council’s budget workshop last month.

The council also voted to set aside $10,000 to pay for a salary increase for City Manager Scott Sellers following his performance review which will take place at the end of the year.

Your tax dollars at work.

In other action last night the council voted unanimously to approve a pair of unenforceable ordinances, one prohibiting a number of vehicles from parking in Kyle neighborhoods and another banning the use of hand-held electronic devices even though many studies, including this one from the National Safety Council, argue that hands-free electronic devices are just as dangerous. But although such ordinances are not effective, they are fashionable and heaven knows Kyle wants to be fashionable. I will still argue that if the council had the courage of its convictions it would have amended the hand-held ordinance to increase the fines of those found disobeying the ordinance in school zones during school hours.

City wants to regulate where you park your pickup

Is this a public safety problem?

The City Council is scheduled to introduce tonight and perhaps even debate a proposed ordinance to prohibit the parking of certain vehicles on residential city streets, including a pickup truck with a compartment in the bed holding tools . The city claims the ordinance is "necessary to maintain the safety, governance and good order of the city." because, as well all know, Bloods, Crips and members of Mexican cartels may very well be hiding out along with those tools in the pickup truck.

Yes, this is much more of decorative issue than it is a public safety issue — there are those who think it just doesn’t look good to have a camper parked on subdivision streets. However, they will find a way to make it a public safety issue by saying those vehicles restrict the view of motorists from seeing what might be parked directly behind that camper and we all know how important than can be.

Could this be barred from parking?

The ordinance could be interpreted to prohibit the parking of Jeep Wranglers, a popular vehicle for using off highway, from city streets as well as pickups. Even though I seriously doubt the local gendarmes are going to tow away a Jeep Wrangler parked along a residential curb, someone might be able to argue if Jeep Wranglers are excused, then the entire ordinance is faulty. But that’s something for a shrewd attorney and the courts to haggle over if and when the proposed ordinance is actually passed.

The proposed ordinance, sought by council member Damon Fogley, states "no person shall park or leave standing any trailers, utility trailers, recreational vehicles, campers, boats, watercraft, snowmobiles, off highway vehicles (OHVs), recreational vehicles, structures, equipment, or apparatuses on a city street, road or public right-of-way within a residential district in the city." It’s that "apparatuses" bit that causes me some concern. The ordinance defines "Apparatus" as "a group or combination of instruments, machinery, tools, materials, etc." What in heaven’s name does that mean? That’s why I’m saying a pickup truck used by most contractors could be among the vehicles prohibited.

The ordinance also states "This does not apply to trash, recycling, compost receptacles used or regulated by the City or other contracted disposal service when placed overnight," as if the city had been plagued by hundreds of garbage trucks parked on residential streets of late.

There is a public hearing attached to this agenda item so if you feel strongly about it one way or another, tonight at City Hall would be the best time to state your case.