All bark, no bite

Ginger and I attended this morning’s dedication of the city’s much-ballyhooed new dog park at Steeplechase Park. It was a nice, well-attended affair hosted by Parks Director Kerry Urbanowicz, representing the city staff, and Mayor Pro Tem Shane Arabie, representing the city’s elected officials. Other city staff members I spotted included City Manager Scott Sellers, Chief of Staff Jerry Hendrix and, of course, Communications Specialist Kim Hilensenbeck. Other elected officials included council members Daphne Tenorio and Tracy Scheel, both of whom, like me, brought their beloved pets with them. (Tenorio, it should be noted, only brought her one non-rescue four-legged roommate along, leaving at least three other doggies back at the Tenorio homestead). In the official opening remarks, Arabie talked about how the dog park is another move by the city to improve the quality of life for its residents and provide the opportunity for neighbors to interact with each other.

The first official dogfight in the park began at 10:34 a.m.

The two dogs in question were separated almost immediately with seemingly no harm done. A lot of growling and barking, but no real attacking or biting. Kind of a microcosm of a typical Kyle City Council meeting, another one of which is scheduled for this Tuesday following a two-week break. That last council meeting on May 15 was incredibly brief, actually lasting less than an hour. We should be so lucky this time around. This week’s executive session looks like it could last longer than the entire last City Council meeting.

The agenda includes four items — count ‘em, four — involving the erection of no-parking signs along streets where students at the city’s two high schools park on residential streets. An overly long presentation on the Emerald Crown Trail Folly is also on the agenda. (I still escapes me why the city is so accommodating about a proposed path between Buda and San Marcos that will largely bypass Kyle while completely ignoring the concept of its own municipal trail network, but there you have it.) There’s also a suggestion to have the city’s code of ordinances include rules about exactly where in their backyards residents can place accessory structures and if the council wastes as much time haggling over this as the Planning & Zoning Commission did, discussion on this one item could also last longer than the entire May 15 meeting.

But the items that really piqued my interest ahead of Tuesday’s confab were two of the four being advanced by Mayor Travis Mitchell: one to bring back yet one more time the well-worn idea that Kyle should be a member of the Central Texas Clean Air Coalition and the second one being a change to the council rules to avoid the mess like the one the council created for itself a couple of months ago involving a controversial zoning decision.

In the almost four years now that this journal has been in existence the council has twice rejected the notion that the city should join the Clean Air Coalition. I am not firmly entrenched on either side of this issue but I lean toward not joining for a few reasons. The first, of course, is Groucho Marx’s philosophy of life as outlined in his resignation letter to the Friar’s Club (and repeated by Woody Allen in the great Annie Hall) that "I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member." The second is that the organization does not emphasize the one goal that will achieve its clean air objectives and that, of course, is reducing the number of fossil-fuel burning vehicles on the roads of Central Texas. The third is that there’s money involved in joining the coalition, that money comes from taxes we pay and I’ve never been convinced Kyle would receive an ample return on that investment. And since the last time a Kyle council rejected this idea, another reason has been added: the Trump administration, under the leadership of EPA Director Scott Pruitt, is doing everything it can to disembowel organizations like the Texas Clean Air Coalition in its unrelenting efforts to eliminate all regulations designed to keep our air and water hazard free.

However, according to Mitchell, that third reason I had — the one about a return on the taxpayers’ investment — may have a hole in it.

"The Clean Air Coalition is being brought back for two reasons," the mayor told me. "First, we have two new members on the council and those members have not weighed in on the matter. (They both replaced council members who cast dissenting votes.) Second, CAPCOG (Capital Area Council of Governments, of which the coalition is a part) recently demonstrated how participating in the Clean Air Coalition could be valuable to our residents by drafting a technical memo to help us better understand how near-road air pollution might affect a particular residence in Kyle. It was a concrete example of how participating in the group can be of service to our community, and as such I have decided to vote in support of joining."

So what exactly did this "technical memo" say that was so valuable?

"We had a resident express concern that road improvements near his business would create enough road-based air pollution to negatively affect his business," Mitchell said. "Rather than speculate, we asked for CAPCOG to analyze the air-quality impact of the proposed project. Utilizing science and manpower in part made available through the Clean Air Coalition, CAPCOG provided us this technical memo at no charge. The data was extremely helpful in our communication with the resident, and it also provided a clear understanding of how our projects may or may not impact the air quality of the community."

So did that mean CAPCOG’s study show the road improvements under consideration would not "create enough road-based air pollution to negatively affect his business"?

"Correct," the mayor replied.

The other item involving changing the rules of council includes one having to do with the deadline for submitting proposed agenda items and the second, and more interesting one, dealing with the procedure for bringing a defeated item back for reconsideration. If the rule changes are approved, the new deadline for council members to submit agenda items would be 3 p.m. on the Thursday immediately preceding the could meeting in question. (The previous deadline was 5 p.m. five business days before the meeting.) The second change provides an exception to what I call "the Diane Hervol rule" that stated if an item placed on the agenda by a council member failed to pass "that same item or one of substantially similar subject matter may not be placed back on the agenda for at least six months from the day of the vote." (I call it "the Diane Hervol rule" because the former council member whose name I invoked would routinely bring back meeting after meeting an item the council had already rejected until she wore enough of her colleagues down that they would decide to vote for it just to keep from having to deal with it at every meeting.) The interesting addition to this rule is one that concerns "matters that have not received four votes … either for or against…"

If you’ll recall the council back in February tried to vote on a zoning request for a proposed residential subdivision on Sledge Street that was opposed by those living in an already established subdivision on the other side of the street. Arabie was not present at this meeting and votes on two different zoning proposals ended in 3-3 deadlocks, thus effectively killing the subdivision. However, the item mysteriously re-appeared two weeks later and on March 5 one of those zoning requests ultimately passed by a 4-2 vote (on this occasion, council member Damon Fogley was absent). There was some question, especially from Tenorio, whether it was even permissible, according to the council’s established rules at that time, for such a reconsideration.

If the council approves the rule changes Tuesday, it will state that in those situations in which a proposal fails to receive four votes either way "Any member of council can request that the matter be placed on the agenda for reconsideration. The request may be made at the meeting at which the motion failed to pass, or the request may be made in writing and submitted to the city manager and the city secretary by 3 p.m. on the Thursday before the next regular City Council meeting following the meeting at which the matter failed to receive four votes."

Mitchell is insisting that the Sledge Street reconsideration kerfuffle has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this proposed rule change (Sure, Fine. Whatever.), but I’ll leave that debate to others.

"The proposed changes to the Rules of Council are to clarify a policy that we loosely followed but was never spelled out by ordinance." according to Mitchell. "The ‘motion to renew,’ … exercised in the zoning matter you referenced, was allowed under our current policy. The proposal before council on Tuesday will actually create a new rule slightly different than Roberts Rules. It allows for any member of the council to bring back an item at the following meeting if the item failed on less than four votes. To me, this is a more democratic approach.

"I can give you an example," the mayor continued. "The way our rules currently read, let's say council has a meeting in which for whatever reason only four council members can attend. In that scenario, a single dissenting vote would effectively kill the item unless the person who dissented agreed to bring it back. I don't think that is the best approach. If an item fails but on a vote like 3-1 or 3-3, any member of council should have the right to reconsider the vote at the following meeting."

There might be some interesting debate on these issues but, like that incident at 10:34 this morning at the just-opened dog park, I’m betting the barking will be there but the biting won’t.

Mayor seeks to reconsider Tenorio’s appointment to water board

During a meeting Tuesday in which the council is prepared to spend close to $10,000 on a pair of presumably doggie-friendly drinking fountains, see a presentation on a trail network that is supposed to connect Kyle to Austin and San Marcos but seems to be located a good distance west of Kyle, perhaps the most intriguing item is one proposed by Mayor Travis Mitchell to reconsider a vote the council took just two weeks ago to appoint council member Daphne Tenorio to the Alliance Regional Water Authority Board.

The mayor is maintaining silence about the reasons behind this movie ("We will not comment on item 4 at this time," he told me when I asked why it was appearing on Tuesday’s meeting agenda), but, of course, that’s not going to stop me from engaging in speculation based strictly on my own hunches and instincts.

I wondered why the council approved Tenorio on the board based on her past public criticisms of ARWA, but mainly because of her response to council member Tracy Scheel who asked her during the Jan. 9 council meeting why she wanted to be a member of the board.

"I met with a water person about big bills coming from this area," Tenorio said at the time. "I want to understand the processes of why these bills are so high. These bills that are coming from this board are affecting all of our families directly, Most people don’t realize how high their water bills are about to go."

From that response, it’s difficult to determine exactly what "bills" she is talking about, but I presume she is referring to the monthly bills Kyle residents receive to pay for the water they use. And if that’s the case, here’s the concern: ARWA has nothing whatsoever to do with these bills. Yes, it is true that ARWA has secured the rights to water in the Carrizo Springs Aquifer and will be constructing a system to ship that water to its members, one of which is Kyle. And, yes, it is true that there is a cost for that water and that system and Kyle is responsible for paying its share of that cost. But that share has already been determined and agreed upon by all parties so that does not appear to be a debatable issue. And, yes, the city has talked about paying for its share through a water bill rate hike. But that’s a decision for the Kyle City Council to make. It’s not up to ARWA to decide how Kyle will finance its share of the project costs. For example, the city’s Financial Magician Wizard Director Perwez Moheet could find a way because of the rapidly increasing property values, new business ventures coming to down (especially those north of Kohler’s Crossing), and the paying down of the road bonds, to finance Kyle’s share of the project with General Obligations bonds that don’t increase the property tax rate. It’s possible. But that’s a decision the city will make and the city council will approve. ARWA doesn’t have a voice in that.

So my concern at the time Tenorio was approved was whether she understood exactly what the function and the jurisdiction of the ARWA board was and what the responsibilities would be of Kyle’s representative on that board. In my mind, the main responsibility is to make sure Kyle gets its fair share of the water coming from Carrizo Springs. But nowhere in her response to Scheel’s question did I hear Tenorio say anything like "I want to represent and protect the best interests and the future water needs of our city" or that "I want to work with other board members to see how we can keep costs under control."

(Updated Sunday 12:07 p.m.) Tenorio told me moments ago the bills she was referring to are those the city will have to pay for its share of the project.

Council member Shane Arabie, who is Kyle’s other representative on the ARWA board, missed the Jan. 9 meeting because his work these days has him spending a lot of time on the western fringes of Houston. Hopefully, he will be able to make this Tuesday’s meeting because I, for one, would love to hear his views on the Tenorio appointment. He is someone who could either calm or further stoke my fears concerning this appointment. And perhaps the only reason Mitchell wants to reconsider the appointment is because Arabie has already assured the mayor he will be attending Tuesday and Mitchell is seeking Arabie’s public input as well. However, I actually think Mitchell’s motivation has more to do with the fact that he really wants to serve on the ARWA board and he feels the council pulled the chair out from under him just as he was about to sit in it. That is also just a hunch — I have no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise — to support that notion, but it’s still a persistent part of my thought processes as I think about what’s going on here. I guess we’ll all learn more about this Tuesday.

But back to those fountains and those trails.

Item 9 on Tuesday’s agenda is to spend $49,895 for the first phase of what Parks and Rec Director Kerry Urbanowicz says will ultimate be a $150,000 facility consisting of essentially two fenced-in dog parks — one for regular dogs and a second for smaller ones — to be built in Steeplechase Park. The $150,000, Urbanowicz says, will pay for a dog park that features "shade-covered benches and benches throughout the park, pervious walking trails within the park, trees and plants, dog washing station, trash cans, pet waste stations and pervious-paved parking." He said the first $50,000 is part of this fiscal year’s budget and that it will pay for "the fences, water fountains and transition zones (presumably the connection between the two dog areas); that he is hoping next year’s budget will include another $50,000 for the park; and that the final $50,000 "will come from donations, grants and partnerships from the public."

The first year costs include $28,972 for fencing, $2,344 for the gates to each of the two parks, another $2,954 for the fencing and gates at entrance to both parks and $9,970 for a pair of drinking fountains. I’m presuming it’s a drinking fountain along the lines of the one pictured here, although I have no way of knowing that. The $9,970 price tag seemed a tad high at first glance, but upon further research I guess, if you include the required concrete pad you see in this picture, it might be in the ballpark.

But what had me more excited than the water fountains, which would not spur me to drive clear across town to take my loyal canine companion to this particular facility, was the second slide in the presentation that Urbanowicz will probably show the council — the slide that, at first glance, seemed to indicate the dog park might be on the shores of a lake of some sort. My dog loves the water, She loves to plunge in and swim. That’s why she loves the beach and really enjoys the trails around the pond at Plum Creek. But every time I have taken her to a dog park — and I have taken her to more than a dozen different ones — and removed her leash, she doesn’t move, doesn’t run around, doesn’t want to engage with any of the other humans or canines there. The only exception was a dog park the City of Dallas located on the shores of White Rock Lake, She loved it there because she could jump in the lake and swim to her heart’s content. But when I inquired about that second slide in Urbanowicz’s presentation I learned from city spokesperson Kim Hilsenbeck that it "reflects the 100-year flood zone line and how we made efforts to be out of the zone as much as possible." So, maybe after a good rain, like we’ve had too many of lately …?

Item 3 on Tuesday’s agenda is captioned a "presentation by the Emerald Crown Trail Work Group on a proposed trail connecting Buda, Kyle and San Marcos to the Violet Crown Trail in Austin to the Purgatory Trail in southern Hays County." This is completely speculative. This is an idea being promoted by an organization calling itself the San Marcos Greenbelt Alliance, a 19-year-old all-volunteer non-profit group, although it goes out of its way in the presentation to say the proposed regional trail is not a SMGA project, that it is only serving as a "catalyst" for the trail’s partners (one of whom is the City of Kyle) and its stakeholders.

According to Community Impact newspaper, SMGA President Mark Taylor told Hays County commissioners Tuesday that transportation was the primary purpose of the proposed trail. "This trail will be to get people from one place to another," the newspaper quoted Taylor as telling the commissioners. "I think we will ultimately find — if we’re able to put this project together — that our communities (will be) connected more closely. That includes not just the three cities but the rural areas."

The newspaper also said that SMGA recruited geography students at Texas State University to map several proposed trails that would connect natural areas in San Marcos to the Violet Crown in South Austin. Judging from the presentation the council is expected to see Tuesday, as far as Kyle is concerned, it’s the "rural areas" and not the city itself that will be connected. All six of the proposed routes appear to be located far west of the Kyle city limits.

All this, it must be added, is nowhere close to reality. The alliance must still develop a concept/master plan, determine funding sources and talk to the landowners/developers who might be directly impacted by the trail.

For what it’s worth, the Violet Crown website states "In 2006, planning of the Violet Crown Trail began. Its purpose is to create the first regional trail system in Central Texas. After years of strategic land acquisition and planning, the first six-mile segment opened. With continued construction, the VCT is on its way to becoming the longest trail of its kind in Central Texas. Once complete the 30-mile trail will provide a unique recreational experience as it passes through the urban wildlands of the Barton Creek Wilderness Park, the City of Sunset Valley, and eventually into Hays County. Along its route the trail will connect scenic natural areas to neighborhoods, shopping centers, a library, and public parks. Passing near the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, the Violet Crown Trail will head south, winding through the rolling countryside of the City of Austin’s Water Quality Protection Lands in a uniquely natural setting."