City Council ponders road bond project delays, alarms, innovative gateway signage, stop signs and, yes, another roundabout idea for FM 1626

(Updated Friday 9:30 a.m.)

While thankfully lacking in the melodramatics that have unfortunately plagued some Kyle City Council meetings of late, Tuesday’s final July agenda meeting was not wanting for substance with discussions on whether to and how to allow unnecessary stop signs, a fascinating design concept for "Welcome to Kyle" signs at either end of I-35, a possible two-month delay in the remaining road bond projects, the creation of a community garden, requiring every homeowner and business with an alarm system to register those alarms and be subject to a fine for excessive false alarms, and the possibility of finally installing a much-debated roundabout on FM 1626, this one to be located at a point about midway between Marketplace and Kohler’s Crossing, where Dorman Road intersects the parkway.

Whew! Where to begin.

I think I’ll start toward the end of the meeting and work my way to the beginning.

The council voted 5-1 (council member Becky Selberra missed last night’s meeting due to illness and council member Daphne Tenorio voted against) to let TxDOT know the city supports a TxDOT plan to install a roundabout at the main entry point to the Plum Creek neighborhood from FM 1626 (Kyle Parkway). As many might remember, a huge debate ensued a little more than a year ago over the idea of building a roundabout at FM 1626 and Kohler’s Crossing. That debate, however, involved the use of city funds for the construction of the amenity and finally TxDOT simply stepped in and said, in effect, "Stop your endless arguing. We’re just going to put a traffic light there." And, of course, that’s exactly what TxDOT did.

This time, however, it appears (although it’s not absolutely guaranteed) that TxDOT will foot the entire bill for the cost of installing a roundabout at this three-way interchange. And let me be clear about one thing: Although there are plenty of traffic circles in Kyle, including one recently installed where Marketplace dead ends into Burleson Road, as far as I know there is nothing in the city that could actually be properly classified as a roundabout. This will give you some idea of the difference, although Kyle’s traffic circles are much smaller than your average traffic circles.

Council member Tenorio felt more citizen input was needed before the council went on record as telling TxDOT the city was fine with the idea of roundabout there, but the other council members decided it was OK just to tell TxDOT to proceed. No one mentioned a timetable on when construction might begin on this project and, frankly I didn’t think to ask City Manager Scott Sellers about a construction time line after last night’s meeting. I have, however, sent an email to the city’s spokesperson requesting that information. (Update: The city's spokesperson forwarded an e-mail to me Friday morning in which Sellers told her "I didn't discuss this [with TxDOT], but will try to verify the next time I speak with them.")

The entire council wrapped their collective arms around the notion of the city requiring the registration with the city of all alarms installed in homes and businesses after Police Chief Jeff Barnett revealed that out of 1,500 alarms police responded to last year, 1,495 or an astounding 99.67 percent, were false alarms. The national average for false alarms is much higher than I would have imagined, somewhere between 94 and 98 percent, but 99.67 percent is simply outrageous.

The amendment to the city’s current alarm ordinance approved by the council last night, would, in the words of Chief Barnett, require anyone with an alarm system in their home or business to "come to the police department to obtain a permit and pay a permit fee and then your permit would be good for 12 months." (The amount of the fee will most likely be established when the council reviews the entire fee schedule during its upcoming budget deliberations.)

Barnett said it takes a police officer between 15 and 20 minutes per alarm call "to make their way to that call, to check the facility out, make contact with the owner if they’re not on the site and then clear that call." Translated, that means close to 500 police man hours were wasted last year responding to false alarms.

"The goal of this amendment is to get false alarms down to zero and keep our officers out on the street," Barnett told the council.

Zero false alarms is, of course, an impossible goal. From experiences I’ve had on this issue working with the police in Dallas, most false alarms are caused by things like a household cat triggering a motion detector that sets off an alarm in a residence. How, other than cruelly keeping pets caged when their owners are not at home, is a homeowner going to prevent those kinds of incidences?

Those exempt from having to obtain an alarm permit from the police, Barnett said, included "financial institutions as identified in the Bank Protection Act of 1968," governmental users such as schools and local, state and federal agencies and those over the age of 65 would still need to register their alarms but would be exempt from the fee requirement.

Barnett said the ordinance allows for three false alarms per permit, but the fourth and fifth one in any calendar year would result in a $50 fine, numbers six and seven cost $75 and anything above that costs $100 per false alarm. Anyone with more than 15 false alarms in a calendar year could have their permits revoked.

"Our goal as a police department is not to discourage alarms," Barnett said. "We encourage people to put in burglar alarms, panic alarms, medical alarms and fire alarms. But we want them to own and operate them in a very responsible manner so we don;’t have as many false alarms."

There was some concern among council members, mainly expressed by council member Travis Mitchell, about getting the word out to those Kyle residents and business owners that they will soon be required to have their alarms registered, but, as I said earlier, in the end the council voted unanimously to endorse the chief’s plan,.

Mitchell also raised some concerns about a proposed policy governing unnecessary stop signs. Under the proposed ordinance, which eventually was tabled, any group of residents who wished to have a stop sign or other traffic controlling device installed in their neighborhood where a preliminary city study indicated such a device was unnecessary would have to pay a deposit ($500 was the amount bandied about although nothing was set in stone) to fund a full-fledged traffic warrant study. Mitchell’s concern was that neighborhoods without homeowners’ associations would be at a disadvantage when it came to coming up with that $500.

However, others, including City Manager Scott Sellers and Mayor Todd Webster came right out and said the city should simply prohibit unwarranted traffic control devices.

"It is staff’s recommendation that we look at internally all requests for signs, and any sign that doesn’t meet warrant is not erected," Sellers said flatly. And to add some emphasis, he said "That is our position. It will always be our position."

And after the meeting was over Mayor Webster confirmed he would not oppose an ordinance that prohibited the installation of unwarranted, unnecessary traffic control devices, but he doubts the rest of council would go along with him. At the very least, he said, he would like to see any ordinance that might permit unwarranted devices also explain the possible hazards such devices might cause.

The gateway signage concept has to be seen to really be appreciated. Having said that, however, I, along with everyone else attending last night’s meeting, saw a representation of the sign and I’m still not sure I completely "got" it. I’m not going to even try to put it in words so I will just relate how Sellers described it to the council:

"It’s two sheets of aluminum or some sheet metal, the first sheet being cut out so what you see there is (a map of the state of Texas), the word ‘Kyle’ and the water tower — those are cut out of the first sheet. Behind is a solid sheet and in between those two sheets is a row of LED lights that shine up on that back sheet to provide an illumination that, especially in the evening, provides a very sharp 3-D effect back through the cutout."

See!! I told you that you really had to see it for yourself, that words can’t do it justice.

"It really embraces modernism," Sellers said. "It embraces the demographic that represents the majority of Kyle citizens (whatever that means -- my words, not his). It embraces the brick on the pedestal. So it really tries to encompass what we currently today stand for.

"Now the great thing about this sign is, it’s inexpensive, compared to the other large, monument signs," Sellers continued. "Sometimes, not to be too critical, I see gateway signs along the interstate and they look like large tombstones. We definitely did not want to commemorate our death to people driving by the city. We wanted to show we’re vibrant, we’re alive."

Personally, as much as I loved Seller’s tombstone line, I did think the comparatively low cost was not actually "the great thing about this sign." What I thought was the great thing was what Sellers said next:

"As we continue to grow and redefine who we are, that front sheet can easily be replaced. So maybe the water tower isn’t the image that we want in a few years. We can pull down the front sheet and replace it with one that has a different cut-out."

Now that’s cool. That’s different. That’s unique. A gateway sign with an interchangeable message.

Moments before Sellers talked about the signs, another one of the city’s interns from Texas State, Zohaib Qadri, outlined plans for an adopt-a-street program that would go along way to enhancing beautification efforts as well as a concept for a Community Garden on what is currently vacant land behind Seton Medical Center.

In the evening’s very first presentation, City Engineer Leon Barba told council members something they didn’t really relish hearing:

"The fact is Goforth from I-35 to Bunton Creek Road is 23.3 percent complete. As you know we had a significant bout with bad weather. Utilities, as I’ve mentioned before, have always been a problem and we’re still having problems with utilities. We were promised those utilities would be cleared and guess what? We’re still finding utilities in the road. Right now the focus is getting the section of road between Brent and just south of Steeplechase open before school starts. School starts Aug. 22. But the teachers come in a week earlier so we really have to figure out a way they can get into the school while we’re doing that construction. So the focus right now is at least getting that section done."

Mayor Webster asked Barba how this delay would delay the start of work on the Bunton project.

"We’re thinking two to three months," Barba replied.

"And the Goforth extension as well?" the mayor asked.

"Yes," Barba said. "Same contractor."

"That’s not good," the mayor replied.

For what it’s worth, Barba said what had been referred to as the Goforth Extension (or the free road project because it was inserted without effecting the bond package) from Bunton Creek Road to Kyle Parkway is now officially designated as Philomena Drive.

In other action last night, the council:

• Tearing a page from the late Spiro T, Agnew’s Catalog of Jingoism passed a resolution declaring everyone wearing a police uniform is a paragon of virtue and expressing its sorrow over the deaths of officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge, It also ordered copies of the resolution be sent to those aforementioned cities but, thankfully, not to the family of Rodney King.
• Postponed a presentation on the Kyle Vista Park Public Private Partnership Proposal, which is somewhat of a shame because I, like probably so many others, have absolutely no idea what that partnership proposal is all about.
• Certified the appointments of Aaron Townsend and Cindy Lawson to the Civil Service Commission.
• Adopted a whole host of national and international codes.
• Approved a Memorandum of Understanding between Hayes Caldwell Public Utility Agency and the cities of Kyle, Buda and San Marcos for the exchange of water.
• Adopted the rules that will govern council meetings until the next council election.
• Learned the city manager will unveil a draft of his proposed FY 2016-17 budget on Friday. Sellers assured me after the meeting a copy of that proposed budget will be available to the public on the city’s website by the end of the day Friday as well.
• For the first time in memory, did not conduct an executive session.

Kyle PD’s speeding crackdown yields phenomenal results

I find these numbers absolutely shocking: The Kyle Police Department enforced a well publicized crackdown on I-35 speeding Monday that resulted in the patrol officers issuing 47 traffic citations, according to figures released today by Police Chief Jeff Barnett. Here’s what I find truly amazing about that number. The week before, on Monday, May 9, just one citation was issued.

Barnett said the success of the program guarantees it will be repeated. "We will do this throughout the summer," he said. The program is part of an effort to reduce the number of traffic accidents in Kyle on I-35.

Like I predicted before the actual crackdown day, 87 percent of those motorists ticketed were from out of town. Hey, I’m not one of the world’s greatest prognosticators, so in that rare instance when I get something right, I’m going to let the world know about it. The actual numbers, Barnett said, were "41 out of 47 did not have a City of Kyle address."

Which just goes to prove my theory that more people need to not only slow down when driving through Kyle, but actually exit off the interstate and stop in town for some delicious coffee, barbecue and pie.

Why Kyle has an acting police chief

I have seen questions as well as suggested answers to those questions floating around social media concerning the reasons the City Council felt it was necessary to temporarily appoint Kyle police Capt. Pedro Hernandez as its chief. These questions and mostly erroneous answers were in response to a newspaper headline that screamed "Kyle Police chief placed on leave." The automatic reaction of many who saw that headline was "What did Chief Jeff Barnett do that was so wrong?". The simple answer is "absolutely nothing."

I have written before about how, especially when it comes to the public’s view on government, perception reshapes reality. The explanation for why this action was taken was because the city did not want an action that’s about to take place viewed as petty retaliation and so city leaders took steps to shape the public’s perception of what is about to take place so that it more closely conforms to reality.

Let me explain by briefly going back to near the beginning of this drama — a drama featuring two lead characters, Chief Barnett and former Kyle Police Sgt. Jesse Espinoza. There are supporting characters involved, but right at the start, let’s concentrate on the dynamics between Chief Barnett and Sgt. Espinoza. I first met Sgt. Espinoza, who was then head of Kyle’s police association, early Saturday morning, Nov. 15, 2014, when the City Council was meeting in executive session to interview the finalists for the then-open position of city manager. Espinoza was actively seeking to talk to then acting city manager James Earp as well as anyone else he felt might give him a receptive ear claiming he held in his hand documents that so incriminated Barnett the city would have no other choice but to fire the chief. At the time, I had lived in Kyle only 31 days. I had just moved here from Dallas where for many years I held a rather prominent position with the City, a position that offered more opportunities than I would have wished for to interact with the internal politics of a police department, not only the Dallas PD but that of many of the nearby cities and towns as well. One of my takeaways from that interaction was the realization that, while certainly not a part of the written job description, it was the ultimate goal of the head of every police association known to mankind to get the police chief fired. The poor Dallas police chief had to deal with seven — count ‘em — seven different police associations within his department, most if not all of whom were hunting for his scalp. Nothing personal, mind you. It’s just what they did. On that particular Saturday morning I simply waved off Espinoza’s actions as nothing more than "That’s just what police association heads do."

I subsequently learned, however, there was more to it than that here in Kyle. Espinoza had actively campaigned against Barnett even being hired by the City of Kyle, for reasons I won’t go into now but you might get a better picture of by reading this.

As time went on, it came to the attention of certain individuals that Espinoza may have acted in a way that warranted disciplinary action being taken against him. The rule is, however, that kind of disciplinary action in connection with any police officer in just about any municipal police department must be meted out by the police chief. That’s where the perception problem came into play. The city was concerned, and justly so, the perception of Barnett disciplining Espinoza could be framed as retaliation. So to avoid that perception, the city placed Barnett on administrative leave (in other words, suggested he take a couple of weeks off) and brought in a former police chief from Waxahachie, Charles Edge, to conduct the investigation the city hoped would provide the necessary evidence to kick Espinoza off the force.

And Edge provided just that. Espinoza, however, appealed that suspension and that appeal was heard by an independent labor and employment administrator named Michael B. McReynolds of Fort Worth. Testimony in those appeal hearings ended last November and McReynolds said he hoped to have his written ruling on the matter prepared sometime during the first quarter of this year.

McReynolds, however, was in failing health and he died last month before he could officially announce his decision. That left the city with two options: It could either shell out of big chunk of (taxpayers’) money to make the situation disappear or it could start over from scratch. The city decided to pursue the second option.

Now here’s where I enter the realm of conjecture, which I must do because all parties involved in this case are obligated by things like attorney-client privilege, prohibitions against ex-parte communications, the sanctity of executive sessions, etc, so they can’t discuss any of this with me or any other outside parties. But this conjecture has, I believe, a solid foundation. The only logical conclusion one can reach from all this is that to "start over from scratch" doesn’t simply mean beginning the appeal process hearings again, it means going all the way back to the original disciplinary action Edge took against Espinoza. What’s different this time, however, is that Edge’s findings are part of the public record and while the truthfulness of those findings might be in question (hence the appeal hearing) their mere existence is not. So this time, the city can avoid the perception of "a chief personally retaliating against a officer with a personal grudge against that chief" without having to bring in an outside investigator, but simply by having a respected officer within the department to review Edge’s findings and to determine if they still warrant Espinoza’s suspension. As soon as that decision is made, one way or the other, Barnett will be reinstated, probably with thanks from many of those involved for being such a good sport about all this and a team player. I have the feeling, however, that if Edge’s findings are reversed by Hernandez, which I do not predict will happen, Barnett will not remain in town for long. But that’s just my feeling.

I hope this narrative clears things up and erases some of the wrong perceptions that came about because of the aforementioned newspaper headline. However, if you’re still confused by all this, my advice is simply forget about it, round up the family and take them to Evo to see the movie Zootopia. Trust me, by the time Shakira belts out her song at the end of the film, your head will be cleared and you’ll feel a whole lot better.

Anthem developer proposes new water deal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City Council caves to NIMBYs

The Kyle City Council, with explanations that, for the most part, if they are to be believed would bring all development in the city to a screeching halt, voted 5-1 last night to deny a request for a townhouse development located only a half a mile from City Hall.

Council member Shane Arabie was the only council member to vote in favor of the zoning request, although Mayor Todd Webster, whose explanation for opposing the measure was the only one that made any sense, seemed to vote no quite reluctantly. When his name was called during the roll call vote, he sat silently for a relatively long time before voting "nay" in way that made his vote sound more like that last name of this comedian whom I remember from the old Steve Allen Sunday night television show. Council member Daphne Tenorio did not attend last night’s meeting.

But, at least, Mayor Webster’s opposition seemed to make some sense. He voiced concern over the cost that would need to be borne by the city to upgrade what are now comparatively narrow streets near the site — specifically Cockerham, and possibly even Live Oak and Porter streets — upgrades that would be required to handle the traffic from the development that could potentially have been the site of 150 townhomes.

Here’s the rub, however. Without any zoning changes whatsoever, at least 90 single family homes could be located on the property and Planning Director Howard Koontz cited studies that proved that single family residences generate three times as many car trips as townhomes do. In addition, the parcel of land south of the property in question last night is already zoned for townhomes so they could be built there without needing any new zoning requests and that property is a lot closer to Cockerham and Porter streets than the ones under discussion last night.

Webster seemed to realize this and it was this dilemma, I am convinced, that resulted in his hesitancy in announcing his vote.

The other reasons given by council members, however, bordered on the goofy, none more than the one offered during the debate by council member Damon Fogley who said he opposed the rezoning because he didn’t want to add any more residential areas to the city’s tax rolls when homeowners currently bear the major burden of city property taxes. Perhaps he simply didn’t grasp that the lots already had residential zoning attached to them and the question before the council was simply whether to change the type of residential zoning. But, to be honest, I think that was Fogley’s excuse for casting a no vote, not his reason. The proof of that will come the next time a big developer comes along with a project to develop a major subdivision on land presently zoned agricultural. I’m betting Fogley will be tugging at his leash to approve it even if it will be far less sustainable than the issue on the table last night.

Mayor Pro Tem David Wilson along with council members Diane Hervol and Becky Selbera did not voice a reason for voting against the measure during the debate, so I had to approach them for their reasons at the conclusion on the council’s meeting. By that time, Selbera had bailed, but Hervol told me she opposed the development because "of the effects it will have on our wastewater, flood control and roads. The effect it’s going to have on our wastewater plant is very crucial." That’s possibly very well true, but it is also true for every single new development that plans to come to the city of Kyle. New developments inherently will have an effect "on our wastewater, flood control and roads." So, if she really believes what she was telling me, she will want all development in the city to stop. So, just to clarify, I asked her specifically if it was only the cost of needed infrastructure improvements in the immediate area that concerned her, She replied: "We’re already well on our way to improving the wastewater treatment plant, but the impact (of this development) concerns me." Again, it will be interesting to see if she voices similar concerns for any other proposed new developments within the city limits.

Wilson said he voted against because of "infrastructure in that area and safety. We don’t have the infrastructure to handle it and we already have people from new subdivisions cutting through on those roads." But, as mentioned earlier, development could proceed on the property without any zoning changes that would precipitate far more traffic.

Let’s be honest here. The only reason this zoning wasn’t approved was because the council withered in the face of the vocal opposition of a few selfish NIMBY residents of an adjacent subdivision who are opposed to any change and are hoping this piece of property in downtown Kyle will stay undeveloped forever. The problem is so few people vote in Kyle city elections, a small handful of irate, self-centered residents such as these could possibly tip an election and that scares the bejeezus out of these entrenched power-mad politicians who desperately want to hang on to their fiefdoms.

Arabie wisely recognized this fact when he said the residents of the Silverado subdivision may rue the day they opposed this development when they suddenly find themselves rubbing shoulders with a big warehouse development on the property that could have contained some nice, attractive townhomes.

The applicant himself, whose name I failed to capture, was stunned by the outcome. The opposition from the NIMBYs was just as loud — perhaps even louder — at the most recent Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, yet those commissioners displayed some backbone and ultimately unanimously approved the rezoning of the larger of the two parcels in question. The applicant said he had no idea what his next steps would be. "I am just going to have to sit back and regroup," he told me outside the council chambers.

For what it’s worth, here’s what I would do if I was in his shoes. Like I said, two parcels of land were proposed to be rezoned from single family residential to townhome residential. One of the parcels was 1.3 acres, the second was 14.083 acres. The council only voted on the smaller parcel; the applicant pulled his application on the larger one before council could vote on it. The applicant must now wait one year to apply for the same zoning change again on the 1.3 acres. However, he doesn’t have to wait at all on the much larger parcel.

I would begin holding small, informal meetings with residents of the Silverado subdivision to see what kind of compromises would need to be made to make them more favorable to the development. The major concern voiced by the NIMBYs was the increased amount of traffic that would flow through their subdivision. There is a small nub of a street, the name of which I can’t determine, located off San Felipe Drive between Salado and Remington drives that, at the present time, is the only visible access to the property. That is the route the NIMBYs voiced concern about – that all traffic to and from the subdivision would have to go down that nub and, thus, wind through Silverado. The applicant plans to construct roads to the southwest connecting to Cockerham and perhaps one to Live Oak, which he envisions as the main access to the site. One compromise I would seriously consider would be to construct a blockade that would prohibit traffic from entering Silverado from the townhome development.

The second thing I would present to the homeowners would be studies which prove that such a development adjacent to their property will actually increase their property values. There are plenty such studies to draw from.

The third thing I would do would be to present drawings and models to show the homeowners exactly what the proposed development would look like when it was finished, complete with all the additional roadways. Which brings me back to that 1.3 acres that can’t be rezoned residential townhome for at least another year. Work with the city to determine exactly what use he could do with that acreage. I’m thinking of a downtown 1.3-acre community leash-free dog park, complete with a splash pond. To me, that would be a wonderful addition for that part of downtown. I say "community"dog park because it would be open to all pet owners, not just those who live in the townhome development.

Fourth, as I presented all these ideas to the those NIMBYs in Silverado and others near the property, I would ask them to sign a petition indicating they favor the proposal under the compromises, the studies and the plans that I have displayed with them.

Fifth, and this could be the most difficult of all, I would try to form a PID (one designed to be used the way PIDs are envisioned to be used) whose boundaries would begin at the edge of Silverado, and stretch all the way to Rebel Drive that could be used to offset much of the cost of any needed infrastructure improvements.

And then I would bring all that back to City Council and again ask for the residential townhome zoning on only the 14.083 acres that was not voted on last night.

But that’s me.

In other action last night, the city council:

• Heard from Kay Johnson, chair of the Kyle Depot Board, with an update on the Kyle Visitor Center and Museum, which will be located in the depot. She said "a soft opening of this important, historical building" is planned for Saturday, Jan. 23, from 10 a.m. to noon. "We are placing period furniture pieces into the train master’s office next week and preparing displays for our exhibition panels." She said an audio-visual system is being installed that, among other things, "will allow an announcer to be distinctly heard that the next train to San Antonio should be ready to board within in the hour." She also said the Hays County Historical Society is providing copies of a book detailing the history of Kyle and a book signing will be part of the soft opening ceremonies. The proceeds from the sale of the book will be "donated to the continued upkeep of this magnificent depot." She informed the council a formal "grand" reopening of the depot will be announced "at a later date."
• Listened to the details of what was labeled a Transportation Plan but what was actually nothing more than a road construction plan whose brain-numbing, head-scratching conclusion was that the No. 1 road construction priority for Kyle was a two-lane divided Beebee Road, with the division being either a median or a center turn lane, between I-35 and State Highway 21, a project the plan’s presenters estimate would cost $57 million or more than 1.5 times the cost of all the city’s five current road bond projects. And that’s in 2016 dollars — no telling how much more expensive this would be if and when the city actually decided to undertake the project. To be fair, these guys said the city should only be on the hook for $17.5 million, but somehow we would have to sweet talk the county into coughing up the other $39.5 million. Hey, I travel that stretch of road a lot, for reasons I won’t go into here, but I also travel the far more congested 1626 between here and Manchaca quite regularly and, what with the plans to extend the 45 Tollway from the southern tip of Mopac in Austin to 1626 near the Hays County line, to me the area’s No. 1 priority is the widening of 1626 between 2770 and 967. Once that tollway link is complete, 1626 will compete with I-35 as the main conveyor of automobiles to and from Kyle and Southwest Austin. And that project should be entirely on the county’s tab. Hopefully, one day the city will quit wasting taxpayer money on road construction plans mislabeled as transportation plans and actually find someone willing to develop a comprehensive transportation plan. And why, pray tell me, are we getting different plans from CAMPO and this outfit, Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam? (Actually, I know the answer: LAN employees donate heavily to city council election campaigns.)
• Approved a request from the Hampton Inn to build a hotel next to the Hays Surgery Center that would exceed the 45-foot height limit for buildings in that zoning. The Hampton’s plans call for it to be 59 feet high.
• Unanimously granted a waiver to a proposed Sonic Drive In that allows it to build more parking spaces than its specified in the city’s code. After all, the Sonic is, as the name suggests, a drive-in and most of its patrons consume their food in their cars and not inside the restaurant. And if you don’t believe me on this, just look at all those stupid Sonic television commercials that always show the two friendly jerks in their car at the restaurant.
• Went through a series of shenanigans that allowed for ex-officio members on city boards and commissions, the first of which were four such members named to the Economic Development & Tourism Board. Mayor Webster cast the lone vote against the first in the series of shenanigans when he learned the new rule applied to all boards and commissions and not just to the Economic Development & Tourism Board.
• Unanimously approved an agreement that will allow the Kyle Police Department to install license plate recognition products in three department vehicles. These products would give police officers the ability to spot and stop cars with outstanding warrants for unpaid fines on already adjudicated traffic violations. It would also allow the drivers of such vehicles the opportunity to pay that outstanding fine on the spot with a credit card. Police Chief Jeff Barnett told me after the item was approved that the city is currently looking at between $4 and $5 million in outstanding such fines owed to the city. That’s almost enough to fund 25 percent of the head-scratching, brain-numbing Beebee Road boondoggle.

Kyle PD can now hire felons

(Updated Wednesday at 10:48 p.m.)
A comment was made in response to this article by someone who identified himself as "TWebster," a name strikingly close to that of Mayor Todd Webster. However, I knew by the tone of the comment it was not written by the mayor and although I had grave misgivings about adding it to the comments section, I ultimately decided to do so under the Freedom of Speech principle. However, more than one person has expressed concern that this comment was posted by someone deliberately intending to discredit the mayor, as well as the police chief, and I a reserve the exclusive right on this blog to take that kind of an attitude. Therefore, I have made the decision to delete the comment. If the author of the comment wishes to more completely identify himself or herself, I will be more than happy to repost the comment.

(Original Post)
Being an admitted felon is no longer an automatic disqualification from serving as a member of the Kyle Police Department. At the request of Chief Jeff Barnett, the city’s Civil Service Commission voted unanimously last night to make a slight change to its rules and regulations, substituting the word "may" for the word "shall," so that the rules now state "Conviction of or admission to conduct that constitutes a felony may result in permanent disqualification from being considered for employment."

Now don’t go thinking the Kyle PD is going to be setting up a recruiting booth at the Big House in Huntsville. We’re talking more along the lines of "childish pranks" and "youthful indiscretions," not persons convicted of violent crimes. Pete Krug, the chair of the Civil Service Commission, said the board made the change solely to allow "an investigator more leeway in the police officer hiring process." Chief of Staff Jerry Hendrix told me Barnett requested the change and Barnett said in a written statement:

"The police department strives to hire well-qualified employees to serve in the police department. Inasmuch, we conduct the TCOLE (Texas Commission on Law Enforcement) and/or TCIC (Texas Crime Information Center)/NCIC (National Crime Information Center) access required background investigations on all applicable employees. Regarding police officer applicants in this process, we are bound to follow TCOLE rules, Civil Service laws, as well as any locally adopted rules and meet and confer agreements.

"We regularly review our rules and M&C agreement, and on occasion, we ask for clarifications or changes to be considered. One such recent example is the locally adopted Civil Service Rule regarding the conduct of an applicant. Particularly in section 143.023, Section 3(f), the police department, the rule states that an applicant ‘shall’ be permanently disqualified if they have a conviction or ‘admission’ of a felony offense. There has been discussion about what constitutes ‘admission’ of a felony offense. Does that mean admission in a formal legal proceeding, or simply admission to anyone at any time? Discussion then expanded to conduct committed as a juvenile, conduct committed 10 and 20 years, ago, conducted potentially felonious committed while acting in an authorized government operation (i.e. military, law enforcement, directed to do so under duress, and so forth). With these and other examples in mind, it became apparent that the ‘admission’ of conduct should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based upon the totality of the circumstances.

"It is with this in mind that we asked the Civil Service Commission to consider a change from the word ‘shall’ to the new word of ‘may’ so that actions may be judged upon a totality of the circumstances. The conviction portion is already regulated by TCOLE; therefore, we are not allowed, nor are we trying to change a rule to allow the hiring of a police officer that has been convicted of a felony. Convicted felons are not allowed to obtain a license as a police officer from TCOLE and are prohibited from access to law enforcement restricted computerized files. Again, we are not trying to make allowances to hire convicted felons, only to allow for the actions of a person that ‘admits’ to previous felonious conduct to be considered for employment based upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding that conduct."

Chief Barnett cited two examples of admitted felons he might consider hiring:

"A 17-year-old sneaks out of the house and takes the parents' car to joy ride or go visit a friend without permission. The parents call the police when they notice their son and car missing. He is located by police hours later while driving home. The parents choose not to file any charges and the matter is handled by the parents. Technically, this action constitutes Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle — a felony. Twenty two years later, this person is now 39 years old, has completed a full career and is an honorably (discharged) veteran of U.S. military. He applies with us and admits the action when he was 17. The ‘shall’ rule would have disqualified this applicant because of his youthful indiscretion.

"A 16-year-old pulls a fire alarm at school on a dare," Barnett said in his second example. "She is now a 15-year veteran of another police department and is relocating to the area because her husband was transferred to the local office of a federal law enforcement agency. Everything else is impeccable in her background and she is now the mother of two children, 35 years old, and the recipient of several police departmental awards at her current agency. The ‘shall’ rule would have disqualified this applicant because of her youthful indiscretion."

Barnett said he wanted to be absolutely clear about one point.

"We do not condone the actions mentioned in these examples, and nothing is intended to imply that these actions would, when taken into consideration for employment purposes, be permissible," the chief said. "These examples are intended to highlight the types of possible backgrounds that would have been automatically disqualified from consideration prior to the change in the rule. There are many more examples that could be mentioned, but I believe this will relay the intent of the requested change."

Importance of newly appointed KPD juvenile officer

The announcement that Kyle Police patrol officer Dago Pates would become the department’s first-ever full-time Juvenile Officer was made a little more than a week ago but I waited to write about it until I could get my hands on figures relating to juvenile crime in the city.

Juvenile Officer Dago Pates

It turns out the number of criminal offenses in which juveniles were suspected increased from 109 in 2013 to 117 last year. It appears that number will go down this year as only 77 such cases have been reported. But here are some interesting numbers from the other side of that coin. Last year 55 juveniles, defined as individuals between the ages of 10 and 17, were victims of criminal activities and that number is 49 so far this year. And since those numbers normally spike during the holiday season, it’s very possible Kyle could easily surpass 2014's figures.

"Our goal will be to provide intervention to juveniles on both lists (perpetrators as well as victims)," Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett wrote to me in an e-mail on this subject. "Intervention and deterrence from behavior and activities that can lead a young person towards a path of adult criminal activity are the focus of the grant. We will coordinate with and utilize all of our wonderful partner organizations in Hays County, as well as our in-house Victims Services Coordinator and Mental Health Officers to provide all of the assistance that we can offer to juveniles that need our help."

The grant Chief Barnett referred to was one the Kyle PD received from the Office of the Governor which is being used to fund the position of Juvenile Officer.

In the official announcement of Pates’s appointment, Barnett said the juvenile officer’s position eventually will have a deterring effect.

"He will work with our local schools and community organizations to identify youth from the Kyle community who need help and guidance to make good choices about their behavior," Barnett was quoted as saying.

Pates has been with the police department since 2009 and has a history of working with at-risk young people, having, for example, spoken to students at the Gary Job Corps Center, where Pates himself graduated from in 2006.

Random thoughts involving the appeal hearing of Jesse Espinoza

Back before he became the high-sheriff of our fair city, Jeff Barnett was the police chief in Princeton, a town of 7,700 folks about eight or so miles east of McKinney, Texas, in Collin County, which is on the northern border of Dallas County. It’s main claim to fame is its relatively low tax rate, the result of it being a General Law city, not a home Rule one. While serving as police chief there, Barnett had a sexual affair with Suzanne Hurlston, who was then the wife of local anesthesiologist Glen Hurlston. On March 15, 2011, Suzanne gave birth to a boy fathered by Barnett but assumed at the time by Dr. Hurlston to be his child. In fact, they named the child Gerard Jeffrey Blake Hurlston. Dr. Hurlston said during testimony Monday at the appeal hearing of Kyle Police Sgt. Jesse Espinoza that he had absolutely no clue the child wasn’t his until he was tipped off 10 months later by Suzanne’s former fiancee, who has also fathered two children with Suzanne, that Barnett was showing up at Dr. Hurlston’s house when the doctor wasn’t there.

Needless to say, Dr. Hurlston was none too happy about any of this.

All of the above is indisputable. Chief Barnett has acknowledged paternity of the child and the infant’s name has since been changed to Jeffrey Blake Barnett. A lot of what follows has been disputed. What’s not in dispute is that on New Year’s Day 2012 Hurlston was arrested on a charge of felony domestic abuse after Suzanne claimed he attempted to strangle her. That charge was reduced to a Class A misdemeanor and Hurlston pled no contest. Subsequently Hurlston claimed his wife contacted Barnett in Kyle, telling him about the incident, and Barnett subsequently called in some favors from his former associates on the Princeton police force and that’s what led to Hurlston’s arrest. Hurlston testified Monday he wanted to know more about this Barnett person and learned he was being considered, along with Kyle resident and Austin Police Department supervisor Joseph Muñoz, for Kyle’s chief of police. At the time Espinoza was head of the Kyle police association and was actively promoting Muñoz over Barnett. Hurlston decided Espinoza might be someone who could provide him with information concerning Barnett. Eventually, in December 2013, Hurlston filed a lawsuit against a number of parties including Barnett and the City of Kyle. The city seems to believe Espinoza illegally supplied Hurlston with information that provided grist for the lawsuit. As a result Barnett in February placed Espinoza on administrative leave pending an internal investigation into Espinoza’s activities that related to Hurlston.

There were a number of problems with this action, however. First, Barnett’s actions could be viewed as nothing more than retaliation against an officer who did not support his quest for chief and who had aligned himself with someone who was not only pursuing legal actions against the chief, but had a personal grudge against him. To counter that perception, the city placed Barnett on administrative leave and brought in a former police chief from Waxahachie, Charles Edge, to conduct the investigation the city hoped would provide the necessary evidence to kick Espinoza off the force.

But there was a second, bigger, problem. According to the Civil Service regulations the City has agreed to in regards to its police department, the department can only discipline officers for actions committed within 180 days of when charges are brought against that officer. If Espinoza did anything the city believes he did in regards to Hurlston — and whether he did or not is still open to question — they were all done outside this 180-day "statute of limitations."

So the City concocted a new plan. They submitted Espinoza to (as close as I can tell) about seven intensive question-and-answer sessions, including one seven-hour session that apparently was videotaped, and at least one session with Edge. The man from Waxahachie testified Monday the answers Espinoza provided during these sessions were "non-responsive," and that non-responsiveness amounted to insubordination and that insubordination was the reason Edge suspended Espinoza from the force indefinitely.

The hearings I attended Monday and Tuesday were the last in a series of hearings Espinoza sought to have that suspension overturned. I obviously missed at least four previous days of testimony which were the real juicy, salacious parts of the hearing during which, from I have been told by a number of sources, testimony was presented on, among other things, the drinking and sleeping habits as well as the "illicit" sex lives of some of this city’s elected officials. I am not going to get into any of this because, for the life of me, who, other than the parties I have already named, was having sex and/or drinking with whom does not seem to have any relevance whatsoever to the issue to be decided, which is whether Espinoza’s suspension should be reversed.

What I do believe was relevant, however, was the testimony I heard myself, especially that from Edge who was the first person to testify Monday and the last of the witnesses called by the city’s hired gun attorney, Bettye Lynn, a labor law specialist. Edge cited the following exchange he had with Espinoza concerning a trip Hurlston was making to Kyle to attend a City Council meeting:

Edge: Did you call Dr. Hurlston?
Espinoza: I probably did.
Edge: Why?
Espinoza: I wanted to see if he made it.

Edge said that exchange constituted insubordination on Espinoza’s part because his second answer proves his first response was "non-responsive." Edge argued that since Espinoza talked to Hurlston to determine "if he made it," the answer to his first question should have simply been "yes."

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?

Hey, I am not a police officer and I have never been involved in the interrogation of a subject in a criminal investigation. But I’m betting most police officers who have will support me on this. If they are interrogating a potential suspect and they ask the subject "Did you commit this crime?" and the subject responds "I probably did," that suspect is going to be handcuffed, read his rights (if Miranda hasn’t already been applied) and dispatched to the lockup. If I asked anyone a question on any subject and that someone answers "I probably did," I’m going to interpret that to mean "yes," and I’m going to go way out on a limb here and argue that 99.9 percent of the English speaking world would interpret it exactly the same way.

Second: I will argue Edge proved to be one of those persons who would interpret it exactly the same way. If he had interpreted it any other way in his examination of Espinoza, then why did he ask the followup question?

Here is another problem I have with this. The first witness called for the defense on Monday was Dr. Hurlston and at one point he was asked when he met Espinoza. He replied: "Probably in 2013 or 2014." And you know what? Not a single person in that hearing room jumped up and claimed that answer was non-responsive.

Like I said earlier, I only saw the final two days of this hearing, but if the city is relying on Espinoza saying "I probably did" as the reason for suspending him, I am convinced Espinoza is being railroaded here.

What happens now is that each side, Lynn and defense attorney Grant Goodwin, will make their final arguments in the form of written statements that will be sent to hearing examiner Michael B. McReynolds, presumably at his home office in Fort Worth. Those statements are due around the end of the year and McReynolds said he would make his final determination, or "award," within 30 days of acknowledging receipt of the statements. So it’s probably going to be late January or early February before we know the outcome. How he’s going to rule is anyone’s guess, but I do know the only times he seemed to lose his temper during the two days of testimony I witnessed was when he told Hurlston "I am having real problems with some of your answers and some of your reactions" and when he put Espinoza down by telling him sternly "You don’t make the rules in this hearing."

So there’s that.

A brief Q&A with Chief Barnett on proposed cell phone ordinance

Yesterday I wrote about a proposed ordinance requested by Mayor Pro Tem David Wilson that would prohibit the use of a cell phone by someone operating a motor vehicle. At the same time I noted Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett said he was working on such an ordinance and would have one ready by the City Council's next scheduled agenda meeting, Sept. 1. Here is the transcript of a short conversation I had with the chief on this subject via e-mail:

Q; Is the ordinance you are working on one that would just ban the use of hand held cell phones or will it include all hand-held electronic devices -- Ipods, tablets, Ipads, etc.?

Chief Barnett: Everything — all of those mentioned. This is obviously subject to the decisions yet to be made by the City Council.

Q: With the size of the force you will have even with the addition of the new officers in the upcoming budget, how difficult do you think it will be to enforce the ordinance or do you think, like speed limit limitations, posting signs will be effective enough?

Chief Barnett: I personally think that the law itself is meant to be a strong deterrent, but our officers will be keenly aware of the prohibitions and will enforce the same. This will be done in the normal course of their patrol duties.

Q: How many accidents have the police investigated in Kyle in the past two years that were directly caused by one of the drivers using a hand-held device at the time of the accident?

Chief Barnett: I don't have an answer for this, as it will take some time for review by the records staff. Let me check on this one and get back to you. It will likely be a couple of days before I have an answer. Short answer — a very small number — not that the real cause wasn't the operator's use of a device while driving, but rather the lack of admission on part of the driver or other proof of this activity for several reasons.

Kyle to consider banning cell phone use while driving

Last week, when I received my latest issue of the Community Impact Newspaper — the issue in which the lead story bore the headline "Buda cracking down on distracted driving" — I wondered how long it would take for Kyle to follow suit. Turns out the time could be measured in minutes.

Last Thursday night Mayor Pro Tem David Wilson asked Mayor Todd Webster and City Manager Scott Sellers to make sure the Sept. 1 city council agenda meeting contained "an ordinance banning use of hand held cell phones and texting while driving."

Police Chief Jeff Barnett confirmed his department is working on such an ordinance and I have reached out to the chief to determine whether the proposed ordinance would only ban the use of hand-held cell phones, but other portable devices as well such as pads, tablets, mp3 players, etc.. I am awaiting a reply and will update if and when I receive it.

Meanwhile, expect at least a proposed cell phone ban ordinance of some form to be on the council’s agenda week from tomorrow.